---------------------------------------------------------- Engines-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 09/23/09: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:10:27 AM PST US From: Richard Lundin 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 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 wrote: > From: 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.. > > > Ben Haas > N801BH > www.haaspowerair.com > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: "Randy L. Thwing" > > To: > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:20:49 AM PST US From: Dee Young Subject: RE: Engines-List: 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 wrote: > > > From: 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.. > > > > > > Ben Haas > > N801BH > > www.haaspowerair.com > > > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > > From: "Randy L. Thwing" > > > > To: > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:51:06 AM PST US From: Tony Crowe Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines Dee You have to do this yourself On 23 Sep 2009, at 13:17, Dee Young 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 > > > > > > > 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 wrote: > > > > > From: 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.. > > > > > > > > > Ben Haas > > > N801BH > > > www.haaspowerair.com > > > > > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > > > From: "Randy L. Thwing" > > > > > > To: > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:54:34 AM PST US Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines From: Kelly McMullen 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 wrote: > Please un-subscribe me from this list. Thanks* * > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List > * > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:22:21 AM PST US Subject: Engines-List: Re: Rotary BSFC From: David Leonard > > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:52:41 AM PST US From: Dee Young Subject: RE: Engines-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:12:57 AM PST US From: Dee Young Subject: RE: Engines-List: 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 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 wrote: > > > From: 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.. > > > > > > Ben Haas > > N801BH > > www.haaspowerair.com > > > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > > From: "Randy L. Thwing" > > > > To: > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:15:01 AM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Rotary BSFC 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:24:09 AM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: Engines-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:42:56 AM PST US From: Daniel Michaels Subject: Re: Engines-List: 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 wrote: From: 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" 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" 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 wrote: =0A From: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:35 AM PST US From: Daniel Michaels Subject: RE: Engines-List: 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 wrote: From: Mel Lewis 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:53:55 AM PST US From: Daniel Michaels Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines A GEO is far from average. Dan --- On Wed, 9/23/09, Richard Lundin wrote: From: Richard Lundin 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 wrote: > From: 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.. > > > Ben Haas > N801BH > www.haaspowerair.com > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: "Randy L. Thwing" > > To: > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:35:15 AM PST US From: George Bearden Subject: Engines-List: 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" > 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 > 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 > 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 > wrote: > > From: Randy L. Thwing > 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" > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines > > I agree with all that... > > > Ben Haas > N801BH > www.haaspowerair.com > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: Daniel Michaels > 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 > wrote: > > From: Randy L. Thwing > 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/====== > =================http://forums. > > > =--> target=_blank rel > nofollow size="2" face="courier new,courier" > #000000?>< > /DIV>
 fa
> ce="courier new,courier" color=#000000 size=2>
> 
> =======================
> ==========
> t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> =======================
> ==========
> tronics.com
> =======================
> ==========
> www.matronics.com/contribution
> =======================
> ==========
> 
>
> ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > 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 > 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" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:25:24 PM PST US Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Rotary BSFC From: Tracy Crook 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:17:06 PM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Rotary BSFC > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:36:28 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Rotary BSFC 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:33:28 PM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Rotary BSFC > > > > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message engines-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Engines-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/engines-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/engines-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.