Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:10 AM - Re: Hi-Rev car engines (Richard Lundin)
2. 05:20 AM - Re: Hi-Rev car engines (Dee Young)
3. 05:51 AM - Re: Hi-Rev car engines (Tony Crowe)
4. 05:54 AM - Re: Hi-Rev car engines (Kelly McMullen)
5. 06:22 AM - Re: Rotary BSFC (David Leonard)
6. 06:52 AM - Re: Hi-Rev car engines (Dee Young)
7. 07:12 AM - Re: Hi-Rev car engines (Dee Young)
8. 07:15 AM - Re: Re: Rotary BSFC (Tedd McHenry)
9. 07:24 AM - Re: Hi-Rev car engines (Tedd McHenry)
10. 09:42 AM - Re: Re: Paul Lamar. !!! (Daniel Michaels)
11. 09:52 AM - Re: Hi-Rev car engines (Daniel Michaels)
12. 09:53 AM - Re: Hi-Rev car engines (Daniel Michaels)
13. 10:35 AM - Re: Hi-Rev car engines (George Bearden)
14. 04:25 PM - Re: Re: Rotary BSFC (Tracy Crook)
15. 05:17 PM - Re: Re: Rotary BSFC (Tedd McHenry)
16. 06:36 PM - Re: Re: Rotary BSFC (Charlie England)
17. 08:33 PM - Re: Re: Rotary BSFC (Tedd McHenry)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Hi-Rev car engines |
Let's also remember, it's not just how many rpm you're turning, it is the percent
of total horse power that you're using. The average car engine at 70mph is
putting out between 20-30 percent of its total. Airplanes use 70-80 percent of
the total in cruse.
Rick
--- On Tue, 9/22/09, n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:
> From: n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 9:06 AM
> It will rev that high,,,,,, if ya leave
> it in third gear..<GGGGGGG>
>
>
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.haaspowerair.com
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: "Randy L. Thwing"
> <n4546v@mindspring.com>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:39:42 -0700
>
>
> do not
> archive
>
> Hello All:
>
> Today I read this on this
> list:
>
> "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm
> that's equivalent to 70 mph on the freeway."
>
> Could everyone or anyone
> please verify that this is even in the ball
> park.
>
> In the last several years
> that car engines have been adapted to aircraft, I have often
> heard statements such as above where:
>
> "These new hi-revving
> car engines run all day long at high rpms.
>
> Between my own experience,
> and polling friends with small cars, I haven't found
> that to be true. I'm not challenging anyone and I
> have no experience with a GEO, but I have noted the
> following:
>
> I had a '89 Jeep
> Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche pickup, Identical
> engines and running gear, 4.0 litre straight six, turned
> 2100 rpm@ 70 mph.
>
> I have a '89 Firebird
> with a 2.8 lite V6, gets nearly 30 mpg on the highway.
> 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
>
> I have a '98 Toyota
> 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6, 2400rpm@
> 70mph.
>
> I have polled friends with
> compact Pontiacs, Chevys & Toyotas, and don't recall
> any turning at orover 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
>
> If I have this wrong,
> please point out specific examples.
>
> Most later models cars
> have tachs so it's not too hard to check.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Randy, Las
> Vegas
>
>
> ===================================
> t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> ===================================
> tronics.com
> ===================================
> www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> Become
> a Court Reporter with an accredited degree. Free info. Click
> Here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Hi-Rev car engines |
Please un-subscribe me from this list. Thanks
> Date: Wed=2C 23 Sep 2009 04:09:49 -0700
> From: rlundin46@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
>
>
> Let's also remember=2C it's not just how many rpm you're turning=2C it is
the percent of total horse power that you're using. The average car engine
at 70mph is putting out between 20-30 percent of its total. Airplanes use
70-80 percent of the total in cruse.
> Rick
>
> --- On Tue=2C 9/22/09=2C n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > From: n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com>
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > Date: Tuesday=2C September 22=2C 2009=2C 9:06 AM
> > It will rev that high=2C=2C=2C=2C=2C=2C if ya leave
> > it in third gear..<GGGGGGG>
> >
> >
> > Ben Haas
> > N801BH
> > www.haaspowerair.com
> >
> > ---------- Original Message ----------
> > From: "Randy L. Thwing"
> > <n4546v@mindspring.com>
> > To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > Date: Mon=2C 21 Sep 2009 19:39:42 -0700
> >
> >
> > do not
> > archive
> >
> > Hello All:
> >
> > Today I read this on this
> > list:
> >
> > "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm
> > that's equivalent to 70 mph on the freeway."
> >
> > Could everyone or anyone
> > please verify that this is even in the ball
> > park.
> >
> > In the last several years
> > that car engines have been adapted to aircraft=2C I have often
> > heard statements such as above where:
> >
> > "These new hi-revving
> > car engines run all day long at high rpms.
> >
> > Between my own experience=2C
> > and polling friends with small cars=2C I haven't found
> > that to be true. I'm not challenging anyone and I
> > have no experience with a GEO=2C but I have noted the
> > following:
> >
> > I had a '89 Jeep
> > Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche pickup=2C Identical
> > engines and running gear=2C 4.0 litre straight six=2C turned
> > 2100 rpm@ 70 mph.
> >
> > I have a '89 Firebird
> > with a 2.8 lite V6=2C gets nearly 30 mpg on the highway.
> > 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
> >
> > I have a '98 Toyota
> > 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6=2C 2400 rpm@
> > 70 mph.
> >
> > I have polled friends with
> > compact Pontiacs=2C Chevys & Toyotas=2C and don't recall
> > any turning at or over 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
> >
> > If I have this wrong=2C
> > please point out specific examples.
> >
> > Most later models cars
> > have tachs so it's not too hard to check.
> >
> >
> > Regards=2C
> >
> > Randy=2C Las
> > Vegas
> >
> >
> > =======================
============
> > t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> > =======================
============
> > tronics.com
> > =======================
============
> > www.matronics.com/contribution
> > =======================
============
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> >
> > Become
> > a Court Reporter with an accredited degree. Free info. Click
> > Here.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
=0A
_________________________________________________________________=0A
Bing=99 brings you maps=2C menus=2C and reviews organized in one place.
Try it now.=0A
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&cre
a=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1
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: Hi-Rev car engines |
Dee
You have to do this yourself
On 23 Sep 2009, at 13:17, Dee Young <henrysfork1@msn.com> wrote:
> Please un-subscribe me from this list. Thanks
>
> > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:09:49 -0700
> > From: rlundin46@yahoo.com
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> >
<rlundin46@yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > Let's also remember, it's not just how many rpm you're turning, it
> is the percent of total horse power that you're using. The average
> car engine at 70mph is putting out between 20-30 percent of its
> total. Airplanes use 70-80 percent of the total in cruse.
> > Rick
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/22/09, n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > > Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 9:06 AM
> > > It will rev that high,,,,,, if ya leave
> > > it in third gear..<GGGGGGG>
> > >
> > >
> > > Ben Haas
> > > N801BH
> > > www.haaspowerair.com
> > >
> > > ---------- Original Message ----------
> > > From: "Randy L. Thwing"
> > > <n4546v@mindspring.com>
> > > To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > > Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:39:42 -0700
> > >
> > >
> > > do not
> > > archive
> > >
> > > Hello All:
> > >
> > > Today I read this on this
> > > list:
> > >
> > > "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm
> > > that's equivalent to 70 mph on the freeway."
> > >
> > > Could everyone or anyone
> > > please verify that this is even in the ball
> > > park.
> > >
> > > In the last several years
> > > that car engines have been adapted to aircraft, I have often
> > > heard statements such as above where:
> > >
> > > "These new hi-revving
> > > car engines run all day long at high rpms.
> > >
> > > Between my own experience,
> > > and polling friends with small cars, I haven't found
> > > that to be true. I'm not challenging anyone and I
> > > have no experience with a GEO, but I have noted the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > I had a '89 Jeep
> > > Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche pickup, Identical
> > > engines and running gear, 4.0 litre straight six, turned
> > > 2100 rpm@ 70 mph.
> > >
> > > I have a '89 Firebird
> > > with a 2.8 lite V6, gets nearly 30 mpg on the highway.
> > > 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
> > >
> > > I have a '98 Toyota
> > > 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6, 2400 rpm@
> > > 70 mph.
> > >
> > > I have polled friends with
> > > compact Pontiacs, Chevys & Toyotas, and don't recall
> > > any turning at or over 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
> > >
> > > If I have this wrong,
> > > please point out specific examples.
> > >
> > > Most later models cars
> > > have tachs so it's not too hard to check.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Randy, Las
> > > Vegas
> > >
> > >
> > > ==========
> > > t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> > > ==========
> > > tronics.com
> > > ==========
> > > www.matronics.com/contribution
> > > ==========
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > Become
> > > a Court Reporter with an accredited degree. Free info. Click
> > > Here.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >====================
> > _===
> >
> >
> >
>
> Bing=84=A2 brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one
place. Tr
> y it now.
>
>
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: Hi-Rev car engines |
It is a self help program:
You get off the same way you got on...there is a link on every message at
the bottom to go to change your subscription options.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Dee Young <henrysfork1@msn.com> wrote:
> Please un-subscribe me from this list. Thanks* *
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> *
>
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 |
|
>
>
> > On his forum/sandbox someone sent in two dyno sheets for a rotary.
> > The BSFC numbers were in the .65 range... Funny, not one person
> > spoke up about that, not even the "wizzard".
> >
> Some people in the rotary community are sensitive about that. I got
> smacked down on the RV List a few years ago for suggesting (based on
> engineering references) that it was an accepted fact that rotaries
> have a lower BSFC than piston engines, generally speaking. Being two-
> strokes, effectively, and having a very poor surface-volume ratio in
> the combustion chamber (compared to a piston engine) it's not
> surprising that they would have low BSFC. I found it odd that anyone
> even challenged the statement, but there you go.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
>
>
> Tedd,
Rightly so that you got smacked down... lower BSFC is good, higher is bad.
so 2-strokes have HIGH BSFC.
That being said, the rotary is in NO WAY (not effectively or otherwise) a
2-stroke.
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
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: | Hi-Rev car engines |
I have un-subscribed about 6 times with no results. I will try again.
Thanks
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
From: apilot2@gmail.com
It is a self help program:
You get off the same way you got on...there is a link on every message at t
he bottom to go to change your subscription options.
On Wed=2C Sep 23=2C 2009 at 8:17 AM=2C Dee Young <henrysfork1@msn.com> wrot
e:
Please un-subscribe me from this list. Thanks
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
=0A
_________________________________________________________________=0A
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE.=0A
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tut
orial_QuickAdd_062009
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: | Hi-Rev car engines |
Tony=2C been there and done that a number of time with no results. I have w
ent to
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-ListThen click on engines (unsub
scribe is highlighted) then click execute and nada
Thanks
Dee
From: groups@bobcroweaircraft.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
Dee
You have to do this yourself
On 23 Sep 2009=2C at 13:17=2C Dee Young <henrysfork1@msn.com> wrote:
Please un-subscribe me from this list. Thanks
> Date: Wed=2C 23 Sep 2009 04:09:49 -0700
> From: rlundin46@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
>
>
> Let's also remember=2C it's not just how many rpm you're turning=2C it is
the percent of total horse power that you're using. The average car engine
at 70mph is putting out between 20-30 percent of its total. Airplanes use
70-80 percent of the total in cruse.
> Rick
>
> --- On Tue=2C 9/22/09=2C n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > From: n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com>
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > To: engines-list@matronics.com
> > Date: Tuesday=2C September 22=2C 2009=2C 9:06 AM
> > It will rev that high=2C=2C=2C=2C=2C=2C if ya leave
> > it in third gear..<GGGGGGG>
> >
> >
> > Ben Haas
> > N801BH
> > www.haaspowerair.com
> >
> > ---------- Original Message ----------
> > From: "Randy L. Thwing"
> > <n4546v@mindspring.com>
> > To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > Date: Mon=2C 21 Sep 2009 19:39:42 -0700
> >
> >
> > do not
> > archive
> >
> > Hello All:
> >
> > Today I read this on this
> > list:
> >
> > "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm
> > that's equivalent to 70 mph on the freeway."
> >
> > Could everyone or anyone
> > please verify that this is even in the ball
> > park.
> >
> > In the last several years
> > that car engines have been adapted to aircraft=2C I have often
> > heard statements such as above where:
> >
> > "These new hi-revving
> > car engines run all day long at high rpms.
> >
> > Between my own experience=2C
> > and polling friends with small cars=2C I haven't found
> > that to be true. I'm not challenging anyone and I
> > have no experience with a GEO=2C but I have noted the
> > following:
> >
> > I had a '89 Jeep
> > Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche pickup=2C Identical
> > engines and running gear=2C 4.0 litre straight six=2C turned
> > 2100 rpm@ 70 mph.
> >
> > I have a '89 Firebird
> > with a 2.8 lite V6=2C gets nearly 30 mpg on the highway.
> > 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
> >
> > I have a '98 Toyota
> > 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6=2C 2400 rpm@
> > 70 mph.
> >
> > I have polled friends with
> > compact Pontiacs=2C Chevys & Toyotas=2C and don't recall
> > any turning at or over 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
> >
> > If I have this wrong=2C
> > please point out specific examples.
> >
> > Most later models cars
> > have tachs so it's not too hard to check.
> >
> >
> > Regards=2C
> >
> > Randy=2C Las
> > Vegas
> >
> >
> > ==========
> > t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> > ==========
> > tronics.com
> > ==========
> > www.matronics.com/contribution
> > ==========
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> >
> > Become
> > a Court Reporter with an accredited degree. Free info. Click
> > Here.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >====================
> _===
>
>
>
Bing=99 brings you maps=2C menus=2C and reviews organized in one place. Tr
y it now.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/con
tribution
=0A
_________________________________________________________________=0A
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that=92s right for you.=0A
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
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 |
|
On 23-Sep-09, at 6:19AM, David Leonard wrote:
> Rightly so that you got smacked down... lower BSFC is good, higher
> is bad. so 2-strokes have HIGH BSFC.
Good point. I meant "worse," not "lower," as you obviously realized,
but thanks for clarifying.
Tedd
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: Hi-Rev car engines |
On 23-Sep-09, at 4:09AM, Richard Lundin wrote:
> Let's also remember, it's not just how many rpm you're turning, it
> is the percent of total horse power that you're using.
It depends what you're concerned about, Richard. If you're concerned
about internal stresses then, when you get to the higher RPMs,
inertial forces dominate and BMEP is relatively unimportant.
Also, remember that while your car engine's duty cycle typically
involves lower BMEP than and airplane engine's does, the car engine is
designed to last 6,000 to 8,000 hours, not a mere 1,500 or 2,000.
That's the other side of the equation that is often forgotten. What's
really interesting is that, since testing for 8,000 hours is pretty
impractical (you'd be on the dyno for nearly a year straight), auto
manufacturers use accelerated testing regimes that look amazingly like
an airplane engine duty cycle! So, in actual fact, production auto
engines are tested for exactly the sort of environment they would see
if installed in an airplane, even though that's not the specific
intent of the testing.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
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: Paul Lamar. !!! |
I was just reading the excerpts from the post. If the poster said something
like "I need 200 hp to get off the ground on my small strip, but once in t
he air I only use 80 HP." It was just to me the poster was bragging that he
got great mileage by only using 80 hp. Which is fine, nothing wrong with p
owering back. There is such a thing as optimal power though. A place where
you get the best mileage for the least weight or HP. It also goes to the ki
nd of flying you do. If you are powering back to 80 hp most of the time you
obviously do not need much more than 100 or so. My 260 Viking has the IO 4
70 260 hp the "Viking" has the 300 hp engine which is heavier and the engin
e mount had to be beefed up then the wings then the landing gear. Now my pl
ane is faster than it, because it is lighter.
I was mostly commenting on "I only use 5 or 6 gph because I only use 80 hp
out of my engine."
Dan
--- On Mon, 9/21/09, ogoodwin@comcast.net <ogoodwin@comcast.net> wrote:
From: ogoodwin@comcast.net <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
#yiv438438901 p {margin:0;}If you're replying to me, I wasn't commenting on
the use of a Geo, but suggesting a reason for having an engine that has mo
re power than might be considered absolutely necessary.=C2- Obviously, a
Geo isn't near enough.=0A=C2-=0AOlen=0A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Smith" <edflying@sandyvalley.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 10:49:56 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: =C2-Paul Lamar. !!!
=EF=BB =0A#yiv438438901 P {=0AMARGIN:0px;}=0A=0A=0A=C2-=C2- Does thi
s guy even know what an 801 is.=C2-To suggest a little geo for an 801 is
a little odd for such a large plane=C2-=C2- Ed Smith=0A=0A----- Origina
l Message ----- =0AFrom: ogoodwin@comcast.net =0ATo: engines-list@matronics
.com =0ASent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:05 AM=0ASubject: Re: Engines-L
ist: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!=0A
=0A=0APossibly the fact that he's operating from 6000msl (field elevation)
up.=C2- I don't think a Geo would work well crossing a 14000 ft mountain
range.=C2- By flat rating (limiting the power used) he has the effect of
a supercharged engine without the mechanical complexity.=C2- He's also us
ing such a small amount of the engine's potential that it should pretty wel
l last forever.=C2- Maybe giving up a little fuel is worth it to him.=C2
- He can carry the power the Geo makes at sea level up into the oxygen bo
ttle levels.=0A=C2-=0AHis numbers make sense if you factor in the way he'
s operating the engine.=C2- Many of us are used to pulling the max power
the engine will put out for takeoff, then 75% for cruise, and so forth.=0A
=C2-=0AOlen=0A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Michaels" <nov32394@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:00:45 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: =C2-Paul Lamar. !!!
=0A=0A=0A=0AI think what he is saying is why have such a big engine out fro
nt if you are only going to use what a little GEO engine will put out at ha
lf the weight. Not only are you carrying extra weight, but your fuel burn i
s more carrying that weight.
Just an observation.
Dan
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:
=0A
From: n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
=0A=0AThis posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several
friends.......=C2- What a piece of work he is=C2- !
=0A------------------------------------------------------------------------
---=C2=AD---------------------------------------------------------------
=0AOn the "801"
=0A=9CThis is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incor
rectly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over =C2-designed to begin with having very
thin skins.
=0A"The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing
5.9 0 -6.3 =C2-gallons an hour."
=0AThe numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at
cruise.
=0ASomething is seriously wrong.
=0A=C2- "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most
airframes."
=0AWhat he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.
=0AThis person is totally clueless.
=0AI am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
=0APaul Lamar=9D
=0A------------------------------------------------------------------------
---=C2=AD----------------------------------------------------------------
=0AI don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are but..
=0AI am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
=0AMy project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are
a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
=0AI built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.
=0A=C2- =C2- My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300
hours.
Been flown in air from 97f =C2- to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of
dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power
settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to
display their creations.
=0AMy responses..
=0A1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
=0A2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web
site and look at the pics.
=0A3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap.
=0A4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And
it is less then his "estimation"
=0A5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free
shot.
=0A6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine =C2-has twice th
e
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
=0A7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built
another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a simple
conclusion.
=0A8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can
dream about.
=0A9- BSFC of .45 ??? =C2- Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor th
at
rich.
=0A10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
throttled back.
=0A11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for
sure doen not need any more power.
=0A12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # =C2-from ? =C2-I turn the motor
alot
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter
prop.
=0A13- =C2-""" Totally Clueless""" =C2-Ya wanna bet..
=0AAnd in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
=0A=C2-Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
=0A=C2-
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=0A
=0A=0A=0A
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: | Hi-Rev car engines |
It will run far longer at 4500 if you lug it at 3000.
Dan
--- On Tue, 9/22/09, Mel Lewis <mlewis@mlode.com> wrote:
From: Mel Lewis <mlewis@mlode.com>
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
My RAV4 at 75MPH is somewhere around 3000.
BUT! . . .If I am going up hill at all, it
is so under powered it drops down a gear or two and the RPM will go to 4500 at
full power to climb the hill.
I am sure it would run at that 4500 RPM
and full power all day long.
-Mel-
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: Hi-Rev car engines |
A GEO is far from average.
Dan
--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Richard Lundin <rlundin46@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Richard Lundin <rlundin46@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
Let's also remember, it's not just how many rpm you're turning, it is the p
ercent of total horse power that you're using. The average car engine at 70
mph is putting out between 20-30 percent of its total. Airplanes use 70-80
percent of the total in cruse.
Rick
--- On Tue, 9/22/09, n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:
> From: n801bh@netzero.com <n801bh@netzero.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 9:06 AM
> It will rev that high,,,,,, if ya leave
> it in third gear..<GGGGGGG>
>
>
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.haaspowerair.com
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: "Randy L. Thwing"
> <n4546v@mindspring.com>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:39:42 -0700
>
>
> do not
> archive
> -
> Hello All:
> -
> Today I read this on this
> list:
> -
> "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm
> that's equivalent to 70 mph on the freeway."
> -
> Could everyone or anyone
> please verify that this is even in the ball
> park.
> -
> In the last several years
> that car engines have been adapted to aircraft, I have often
> heard statements such as above where:
> -
> "These new hi-revving
> car engines run all day long at high rpms.
> -
> Between my own experience,
> and polling friends with small cars, I haven't found
> that to be true.- I'm not challenging anyone and I
> have no experience with a GEO, but I have noted the
> following:
> -
> I had a '89 Jeep
> Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche pickup, Identical
> engines and running gear, 4.0 litre straight six, turned
> 2100 rpm@ 70 mph.
> -
> I have a '89 Firebird
> with a 2.8 lite V6, gets nearly 30 mpg on the highway.-
> 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
> -
> I have a '98 Toyota
> 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6, 2400-rpm@
> 70-mph.
> -
> I have polled friends with
> compact Pontiacs, Chevys & Toyotas, and don't recall
> any turning at or-over 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
> -
> If I have this wrong,
> please point out specific examples.
> -
> Most later models cars
> have tachs so it's not too hard to check.
> -
> -
> Regards,
> -
> Randy, Las
> Vegas
> -
>
> ========================
===========
> t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> ========================
===========
> tronics.com
> ========================
===========
> www.matronics.com/contribution
> ========================
===========
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> Become
> a Court Reporter with an accredited degree. Free info. Click
> Here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
- - -
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
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: Hi-Rev car engines |
> "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm that's equivalent to 70 mph on
> the freeway."
That is possibly a lil exagerated, but I haven't driven one. 4800 is high for good
gas mileage, but not high for a Suzuki at all. I am familiar with the engine,
and the 1324cc Samurai engine (same engine, one more cylinder) which I have
modified, tweaked and hot-rodded for going on 13 years. I am SURE the 1000cc
can do this all day long, the issue I am not sure about is if it does in a Geo.
Depending on the gearing I am running at the moment my 65 mph rpm is between 2600
and 3500. I am acquainted with a large number of other Suzuki builders in the
serious 4x4 world. Suzukis are VERY respected there.
Sometimes, up a long grade, I will run my engine at 6000 rpm for maybe 20 minutes
at a time. My engine is mildly modified (compression, spark, port matching
& clean-up, Isky cam, header, big exhaust) Some folks who have a Trailer Queen
sometimes actually drive them to the trail. Some of them run 5000 as long as
they have to, several hundred miles. Gas mileage is terrible though.
The mud racers back east build for peak hp. Some of them, supercharged or turbocharged,
CLAIM they turn 10,000 - 12,000 rpm. Here in the rocky mountainous west
I build for low-end torque. We NEVER hear of a Zuke with lower end problems.
Folks build these up purdy radical sometimes but never need to beef up the lower
end. This is the 1324cc. The later 1600 had a coupla years where they had
a few problems with the crank. The Zuke seldom has valve problems. I wring mine
out all the time, it is my chew-toy, and I have never floated the valves.
My diesel PU runs at 70 mph @ 1700 rpm.
These engines are VERY tough and long-lived. Even though they are small and have
to turn more rpm than a larger vehicle, it is uncommon for one to 'wear out'
before hitting 200,000 miles. Lady at church had one, never been opened, bought
a new set of radials for her's at 250,000. She said, "Well, it still runs good!".
Most of my Zuke friends have at least 200,000 on their rigs when they start
building.
These engines have a very light lower end. I can hold the 4 cyl crank straight
out at arms length. My toothpick-armed wife can hold the crank in one hand with
no trouble. The crank throws are hollow. There is a void cast into them, all
the way through. You can poke your thumb through there. Yes, there is a lil hump
in there for the oil passage.
I have been bending wrenches for 50 years, and I believe these are GOOD engines.
GeoB
>
> Time: 07:38:47 AM PST US
> From: "Mel Lewis" <mlewis@mlode.com>
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
>
> My RAV4 at 75MPH is somewhere around 3000.
>
> BUT! . . .If I am going up hill at all, it is so under
> powered it drops down
> a gear or two and the RPM will go to 4500 at full power to
> climb the hill.
>
> I am sure it would run at that 4500 RPM and full power all
> day long.
>
> -Mel-
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Tracy Crook
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
>
>
> Probably a little high but smaller engines do tend to be
> geared higher than
> big ones. The Mazda MX5 (Miata) turns about 4000 -
> 4300 at hiway speeds.
> My Kawasaki 650 twin turns close to 4800 at 70 mph.
>
> My 13B rotary cruises at 5200 - 5600 at 170 mph (in the
> plane) and I have
> raced it at 7250 continuously (for 100 mile races). I
> would not feel
> comfortable with that rpm if there were pistons in there
> stopping & starting
> that rapidly. That might be just a psychological
> thing though.
>
> Tracy Crook
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Randy L. Thwing <n4546v@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Hello All:
>
>
> Today I read this on this list:
>
>
> "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm that's equivalent
> to 70 mph on the
> freeway."
>
>
> Could everyone or anyone please verify that this is even in
> the ball park.
>
>
> In the last several years that car engines have been
> adapted to aircraft, I
> have often heard statements such as above where:
>
>
> "These new hi-revving car engines run all day long at high
> rpms.
>
>
> Between my own experience, and polling friends with small
> cars, I haven't
> found that to be true. I'm not challenging anyone and
> I have no experience
> with a GEO, but I have noted the following:
>
>
> I had a '89 Jeep Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche pickup,
> Identical engines
> and running gear, 4.0 litre straight six, turned 2100 rpm@
> 70 mph.
>
>
> I have a '89 Firebird with a 2.8 lite V6, gets nearly 30
> mpg on the highway.
> 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
>
>
> I have a '98 Toyota 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6, 2400 rpm@ 70
> mph.
>
>
> I have polled friends with compact Pontiacs, Chevys &
> Toyotas, and don't
> recall any turning at or over 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
>
>
> If I have this wrong, please point out specific examples.
>
>
> Most later models cars have tachs so it's not too hard to
> check.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Randy, Las Vegas
>
>
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:29:56 AM PST US
> From: Daniel Michaels <nov32394@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
>
> A GEO engine is closer to a motorcycle engine than a 6
> cylinder car engine.
> My Gold wing runs 5000 rpm all day on the freeway red
> lines at 8000 rpm si
> milar to the GEO at 6500. These little engines have been
> running on planes
> for some time. The companies that convert them say they run
> best at 4800.
>
> Dan
>
> --- On Mon, 9/21/09, Randy L. Thwing <n4546v@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> From: Randy L. Thwing <n4546v@mindspring.com>
> Subject: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
>
> =0A=0A =0A =0A=0Ado not archive=0A-=0AHello
> All:=0A-=0AToday I read thi
> s on this list:=0A-=0A"The GEO engine runs all day at 4800
> rpm that's equ
> ivalent to 70 mph on the =0Afreeway."=0A-=0ACould everyone
> or anyone plea
> se verify that this is =0Aeven in the ball park.=0A-=0AIn
> the last severa
> l years that car engines have =0Abeen adapted to aircraft,
> I have often hea
> rd statements such as above =0Awhere:=0A-=0A"These new
> hi-revving car eng
> ines run all day long =0Aat high rpms.=0A-=0ABetween my own
> experience, a
> nd polling friends with =0Asmall cars, I haven't found that
> to be true.-
> I'm not challenging anyone =0Aand I have no experience with
> a GEO, but I ha
> ve noted the =0Afollowing:=0A-=0AI had a '89 Jeep Cherokee
> and a "88 Jeep
> Comanche =0Apickup, Identical engines and running gear,
> 4.0 litre straight
> six, turned 2100 =0Arpm@ 70 mph.=0A-=0AI have a '89
> Firebird with a 2.8
> lite V6, gets =0Anearly 30 mpg on the highway.- 2500 rpm@
> 70 mph.=0A-
> =0AI have a '98 Toyota 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6,
> =0A2400-rpm@ 70-mph.
> =0A-=0AI have polled friends with compact Pontiacs, Chevys
> =0A& Toyotas,
> and don't recall any turning at or-over 3000 rpm at 70
> =0Amph.=0A-=0AIf
> I have this wrong, please point out specific
> =0Aexamples.=0A-=0AMost lat
> er models cars have tachs so it's not too =0Ahard to
> check.=0A-=0A-=0AR
> egards,=0A-=0ARandy, Las Vegas=0A-=0A=0A=0A
>
>
> =0A=0A=0A
>
> ________________________________ Message 4
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:48:39 AM PST US
> From: "n801bh@netzero.com"
> <n801bh@netzero.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
>
> I agree with all that...
>
>
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.haaspowerair.com
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: Daniel Michaels <nov32394@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
>
>
> A GEO engine is closer to a motorcycle engine than a 6
> cylinder car engi
> ne. My Gold wing runs 5000 rpm all day on the freeway red
> lines at 8000
> rpm similar to the GEO at 6500. These little engines have
> been running o
> n planes for some time. The companies that convert them say
> they run bes
> t at 4800.
>
> Dan
>
> --- On Mon, 9/21/09, Randy L. Thwing <n4546v@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> From: Randy L. Thwing <n4546v@mindspring.com>
> Subject: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
>
> do not archive Hello All: Today I read this on this list:
> "The GEO engin
> e runs all day at 4800 rpm that's equivalent to 70 mph on
> the freeway."
> Could everyone or anyone please verify that this is even in
> the ball par
> k. In the last several years that car engines have been
> adapted to aircr
> aft, I have often heard statements such as above where:
> "These new hi-re
> vving car engines run all day long at high rpms. Between my
> own experien
> ce, and polling friends with small cars, I haven't found
> that to be true
> . I'm not challenging anyone and I have no experience
> with a GEO, but I
> have noted the following: I had a '89 Jeep Cherokee and a
> "88 Jeep Coma
> nche pickup, Identical engines and running gear, 4.0 litre
> straight six,
> turned 2100 rpm@ 70 mph. I have a '89 Firebird with a 2.8
> lite V6, gets
> nearly 30 mpg on the highway. 2500 rpm@ 70 mph. I
> have a '98 Toyota 4R
> unner with 3.4 litre V6, 2400 rpm@ 70 mph. I have polled
> friends with co
> mpact Pontiacs, Chevys & Toyotas, and don't recall any
> turning at or ove
> r 3000 rpm at 70 mph. If I have this wrong, please point
> out specific ex
> amples. Most later models cars have tachs so it's not too
> hard to check.
> Regards, Randy, Las Vegas http://www.matronics.com/======
> =================<BRLLOW" href="http
> ://forums.matronics.com" target="_blank">http://forums.
>
>
> =--> <A href="http://www.matro=========%3cbr
> %3e%3cbr%3e%3c/font%3E%3C/b%3E%3Cfont%20color="
> target=_blank rel
> nofollow size="2" face="courier new,courier"
> #000000?></FONT></PRE><
> /DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></A></B></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><PRE><B><FONT
> fa
> ce="courier new,courier" color=#000000 size=2>
>
> =======================
> ==========
> t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List</A>
> =======================
> ==========
> tronics.com</A>
> =======================
> ==========
> www.matronics.com/contribution</A>
> =======================
> ==========
>
> </B></FONT></PRE>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Improve your quality of life. Click now and get an
> experienced life coac
> h!
> http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYRI3mNxN94FuW3i9sKf
> WUzC9JYogalzBB8no9trVAw53hF3qHLjSA/
>
> ________________________________ Message 5
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 10:10:00 AM PST US
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> From: teamgrumman@aol.com
>
> My Tahoe runs all day long at 75 mph at 1900 rpm and gets
> 20 mpg.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mel Lewis <mlewis@mlode.com>
> Sent: Tue, Sep 22, 2009 7:38 am
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
>
>
> My RAV4 at 75MPH is somewhere around 3000.
>
>
> BUT! . . .If I am going up hill at all, it
> is so under powered it drops down a gear or two and the RPM
> will go to 4500 at
> full power to climb the hill.
>
>
> I am sure it would run at that 4500 RPM
> and full power all day long.
>
>
> -Mel-
>
>
> ?
>
>
> From:
> owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Tracy Crook
>
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009
> 9:40 PM
>
>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev
> car engines
>
>
> ?
>
>
> Probably a little high
> but smaller engines do tend to be geared higher than big
> ones.? The Mazda
> MX5 (Miata) turns about 4000 - 4300 at hiway speeds.? My
> Kawasaki 650 twin turns
> close to 4800 at 70
> mph.
>
>
> My 13B rotary cruises at 5200 - 5600 at 170 mph (in the
> plane) and I have raced
> it at 7250 continuously (for 100 mile races).? I would not
> feel
> comfortable with that rpm if there were pistons in there
> stopping &
> starting that rapidly.? That might be just a psychological
> thing though.
>
>
> Tracy Crook
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Randy L. Thwing <n4546v@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> do not archive
>
>
> ?
>
>
> Hello All:
>
>
> ?
>
>
> Today I read this on this list:
>
>
> ?
>
>
> "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm that's equivalent
> to 70
> mph on the freeway."
>
>
> ?
>
>
> Could everyone or anyone please verify that this is even
> in
> the ball park.
>
>
> ?
>
>
> In the last several years that car engines have been
> adapted
> to aircraft, I have often heard statements such as above
> where:
>
>
> ?
>
>
> "These new hi-revving car engines run all day long at
> high rpms.
>
>
> ?
>
>
> Between my own experience, and polling friends with small
> cars, I haven't found that to be true.? I'm not challenging
> anyone and I
> have no experience with a GEO, but I have noted the
> following:
>
>
> ?
>
>
> I had a '89 Jeep Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche
> pickup, Identical engines and running gear, 4.0 litre
> straight six, turned 2100
> rpm@ 70 mph.
>
>
> ?
>
>
> I have a '89 Firebird with a 2.8 lite V6, gets nearly 30
> mpg
> on the highway.? 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
>
>
> ?
>
>
> I have a '98 Toyota
> 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6, 2400?rpm@ 70?mph.
>
>
> ?
>
>
> I have polled friends with compact Pontiacs, Chevys &
> Toyotas, and don't recall any turning at or?over 3000 rpm
> at 70 mph.
>
>
> ?
>
>
> If I have this wrong, please point out specific examples.
>
>
> ?
>
>
> Most later models cars have tachs so it's not too hard to
> check.
>
>
> ?
>
>
> ?
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> ?
>
>
> Randy, Las Vegas
>
>
> ?
>
>
> ?
>
> ?
>
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
>
> tp://forums.matronics.com
>
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> ?
>
>
> ?
>
>
> ?
>
> ?
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> ?
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 6
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:14:15 PM PST US
> From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> Subject: Rotary BSFC was : Engines-List: Re: Paul
> Lamar. !!!
>
>
> For the reasons you cited, the rotary BSPC is not as good
> as a comparable
> piston engine. The best I have seen is around 0.5 -
> 0.55 although some
> claims up to 0.47.
>
> However, Mazda has a completely new design rotary (16X)
> developmental engine
> they have shown. The have gone to a narrower rotor
> housing and doubled the
> length of the throw on the eccentric shaft (thereby
> doubling the torque at
> all rpm over the current 13B) and also increased the
> diameter of the rotor.
>
>
> They have also changed from the heavy cast iron side
> housings to aluminum
> side housings. The rotor is narrower but larger in
> diameter all to improve
> the BSFC.
>
> The preliminary figures suggest that the block will weigh
> approx 20-30 lbs
> less than the current block with the cast iron side
> housings and will
> produce in the vicinity of 220-230 HP naturally aspire.
>
> If they do come out with in an automobile package before
> 2012, I intend to
> swap out my older 13B with 450 hours and 10 years on it.
>
> The rotary is a very reliable engine, however, the
> BSFC is never going to
> be quite as good as the better piston engines.
> Fortunately, it has a number
> of other attributes that continue to make it the
> alternative engine of
> choice for a growing number.
>
> Just a biased personal opinion of course {:>)
>
> Ed Anderson
>
> Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
>
> Matthews, NC
>
> eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>
> http://www.andersonee.com
>
> http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
>
> http://www.flyrotary.com/
>
> http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
>
> http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Tedd McHenry
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
>
>
> > On his forum/sandbox someone sent in two dyno sheets
> for a rotary.
> > The BSFC numbers were in the .65 range... Funny, not
> one person
> > spoke up about that, not even the "wizzard".
> >
> Some people in the rotary community are sensitive about
> that. I got
> smacked down on the RV List a few years ago for suggesting
> (based on
> engineering references) that it was an accepted fact that
> rotaries
> have a lower BSFC than piston engines, generally
> speaking. Being two-
> strokes, effectively, and having a very poor surface-volume
> ratio in
> the combustion chamber (compared to a piston engine) it's
> not
> surprising that they would have low BSFC. I found it
> odd that anyone
> even challenged the statement, but there you go.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version
> of virus signature
> database 3267 (20080714) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version
> of virus signature
> database 3267 (20080714) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>
>
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
Message 14
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 |
|
A rotary tuned for all out best power production (especially if ported for
racing etc) might indeed clock in at .65 BSFC. That has little to do with
what you can expect at cruise conditions in an aircraft application.
Using Van's Aircraft HP required vs airspeed chart published some time
ago, I computed my BSFC at .45 - .47 BSFC at cruise conditions. That's a
tiny bit worse than Lycoming numbers when run LOP but not enough to matter.
Especially considering it happily burns 87 octane auto fuel.
Tracy Crook
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:19 AM, David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> > On his forum/sandbox someone sent in two dyno sheets for a rotary.
>> > The BSFC numbers were in the .65 range... Funny, not one person
>> > spoke up about that, not even the "wizzard".
>> >
>> Some people in the rotary community are sensitive about that. I got
>> smacked down on the RV List a few years ago for suggesting (based on
>> engineering references) that it was an accepted fact that rotaries
>> have a lower BSFC than piston engines, generally speaking. Being two-
>> strokes, effectively, and having a very poor surface-volume ratio in
>> the combustion chamber (compared to a piston engine) it's not
>> surprising that they would have low BSFC. I found it odd that anyone
>> even challenged the statement, but there you go.
>>
>> Tedd McHenry
>> Surrey, BC
>>
>>
>> Tedd,
> Rightly so that you got smacked down... lower BSFC is good, higher is
> bad. so 2-strokes have HIGH BSFC.
>
> That being said, the rotary is in NO WAY (not effectively or otherwise) a
> 2-stroke.
>
> --
> David Leonard
>
> Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
> http://RotaryRoster.net
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 15
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 |
|
> Using Van's Aircraft HP required vs airspeed chart published some
> time ago, I computed my BSFC at .45 - .47 BSFC at cruise conditions.
Tracy:
If your airframe has lower drag than Van assumed -- as it likely does,
due to your lower cooling drag -- then Van's power-required numbers
would have been too high, and the BSFC you calculated would have been
low. Any conservatism on Van's part (and he is famous for it) would
also have lowered your BSFC result.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
Message 16
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 |
|
Tedd McHenry wrote:
>
>> Using Van's Aircraft HP required vs airspeed chart published some
>> time ago, I computed my BSFC at .45 - .47 BSFC at cruise conditions.
>
> Tracy:
>
> If your airframe has lower drag than Van assumed -- as it likely does,
> due to your lower cooling drag -- then Van's power-required numbers
> would have been too high, and the BSFC you calculated would have been
> low. Any conservatism on Van's part (and he is famous for it) would
> also have lowered your BSFC result.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
Possible, but not likely. It's pretty rare (do-able, but rare) for
homebuilt liquid cooled a/c to get cooling drag lower than a Lyc.
I've flown two 400+ mile cross countries in my 160 hp Lyc powered -4
with Tracy (he burns 87mogas, I burn 93mogas), flying the same flight
profiles for each flight, and each time he burned ~1.5-2.5 gal more than
me. My oil burn probably offset that difference.
It should also be noted that I lean my stock Lyc *far* more aggressively
than most Lyc drivers are willing to risk.
Charlie
Message 17
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 |
|
> >
>
> Possible, but not likely. It's pretty rare (do-able, but rare) for
> homebuilt liquid cooled a/c to get cooling drag lower than a Lyc.
I'm not familiar with Tracy's installation, specifically, but cooling
drag is one of the key advantages of liquid-cooled engines. You're
probably right that most homebuilts don't exploit that advantage very
well. You only have to look at the installations to see that. But,
given that Tracy's a pretty smart cookie, I'm giving him the benefit
of the doubt and suggesting that is why his BSFC estimate is optimistic.
The numbers Tracy published would be quite good for an automotive
piston engine. When I see numbers like that for a 13B-based rotary I
begin to look for alternate explanations.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
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! --
|