Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:41 PM - Crossflow (Kevin J. Mason)
2. 01:05 PM - Re: Crossflow (Archie)
3. 04:27 PM - Re: Crossflow (u2nelson)
4. 04:42 PM - Re: Crossflow (Tom Gummo)
5. 05:09 PM - Re: Crossflow (Archie)
6. 06:03 PM - Re: Crossflow (Bobby Sather)
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 |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Kevin J. Mason" <mace@tampabay.rr.com>
Gents,
I've checked the achieves and only find one or two mentions of this
so I'll throw it out. Has anyone considered using the Crossflow 6 Cylinder
Subaru engine on a Rocket? As opposed to the other Subaru engine builders
who claim a maximum of 205hp, Crossflow claims HP as high as 350 in a
turbocharged 3.3 liter. I know of the essential argument about using auto
engines but does anyone have any specific info on Crossflow and why it
may/may not work with the Rocket?
Mace
---
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 |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
> Gents,
> I've checked the achieves and only find one or two mentions of
this
> so I'll throw it out. Has anyone considered using the Crossflow 6
Cylinder
> Subaru engine on a Rocket? As opposed to the other Subaru engine builders
> who claim a maximum of 205hp, Crossflow claims HP as high as 350 in a
> turbocharged 3.3 liter. I know of the essential argument about using auto
> engines but does anyone have any specific info on Crossflow and why it
> may/may not work with the Rocket?
>
> Mace
=======================================================
I see no argument here.
No question regarding the superiority of any late model auto engine.
The choice, application, and installation are the key factors in a
properly executed alliance of the aircraft and the auto engine.
Jan Eggenfellner is a conservative builder/supplier of the Subaru.
Check with him, and you will not receive an inflated answer.
Several years back, I was planning a Rocket powered by a three rotor
Wankel. (an easy 300hp). My second choice was the six cylinder
Subaru. Due to other commitments these never materialized.
I believe, someone from Texas beat me to the Rocket Wankel.
Check with Mark on that one.
I end all my seminars/dissertations with the statement:
"If automotive technology progressed at the same rate as
general aviation, we would all be driving model A's"
(or, possibly, Model T's)
Archie
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 |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "u2nelson" <u2nelson@prodigy.net>
When was the last time you saw a Model T or A with a GPS moving map, fuel
injected or constructed 100%AL or using composites? I think GA has
progressed more than you give it credit. GA is what it is do to a variety of
factors, but progress is being made, just look at our homebuilt, and look at
the Cirrus. We don't sell 10,000 units of the exact same design like the
car industry enjoys, so that pretty much limits how much you can spend on
development. Honestly, the Lycoming IO540 is a pretty sophisticated design,
especially with after market ignition and fuel injection and the basic
engine is dang near bullet proof. Let us all know how the Subaru works
out...My hats off to you for your commitment to experimentation, never the
easy road to take.
Greg Nelson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Archie
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: Crossflow
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
> Gents,
> I've checked the achieves and only find one or two mentions of
this
> so I'll throw it out. Has anyone considered using the Crossflow 6
Cylinder
> Subaru engine on a Rocket? As opposed to the other Subaru engine builders
> who claim a maximum of 205hp, Crossflow claims HP as high as 350 in a
> turbocharged 3.3 liter. I know of the essential argument about using auto
> engines but does anyone have any specific info on Crossflow and why it
> may/may not work with the Rocket?
>
> Mace
=======================================================
I see no argument here.
No question regarding the superiority of any late model auto engine.
The choice, application, and installation are the key factors in a
properly executed alliance of the aircraft and the auto engine.
Jan Eggenfellner is a conservative builder/supplier of the Subaru.
Check with him, and you will not receive an inflated answer.
Several years back, I was planning a Rocket powered by a three rotor
Wankel. (an easy 300hp). My second choice was the six cylinder
Subaru. Due to other commitments these never materialized.
I believe, someone from Texas beat me to the Rocket Wankel.
Check with Mark on that one.
I end all my seminars/dissertations with the statement:
"If automotive technology progressed at the same rate as
general aviation, we would all be driving model A's"
(or, possibly, Model T's)
Archie
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 |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
Speaking as a guy with an thirty year old IO-540 J4A5 in my flying Harmon
Rocket. BTW, it runs great and never misses a beat, so I am not
complaining.
Is it not true that Lycoming has not developed a new engine or even updated
the 320, 360, 540 series engines? In twenty, thirty, maybe even forty
years?
As you said, the electric ignition and improvements in fuel injection have
come from after market companies not Lycoming. Of course, "if it is not
broke, don't fit it" may apply.
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
165 hours.
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "u2nelson" <u2nelson@prodigy.net>
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Crossflow
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "u2nelson" <u2nelson@prodigy.net>
>
> When was the last time you saw a Model T or A with a GPS moving map, fuel
> injected or constructed 100%AL or using composites? I think GA has
> progressed more than you give it credit. GA is what it is do to a variety
of
> factors, but progress is being made, just look at our homebuilt, and look
at
> the Cirrus. We don't sell 10,000 units of the exact same design like the
> car industry enjoys, so that pretty much limits how much you can spend on
> development. Honestly, the Lycoming IO540 is a pretty sophisticated
design,
> especially with after market ignition and fuel injection and the basic
> engine is dang near bullet proof. Let us all know how the Subaru works
> out...My hats off to you for your commitment to experimentation, never the
> easy road to take.
>
> Greg Nelson
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Archie
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Rocket-List: Crossflow
>
>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
>
>
> > Gents,
> > I've checked the achieves and only find one or two mentions of
> this
> > so I'll throw it out. Has anyone considered using the Crossflow 6
> Cylinder
> > Subaru engine on a Rocket? As opposed to the other Subaru engine
builders
> > who claim a maximum of 205hp, Crossflow claims HP as high as 350 in a
> > turbocharged 3.3 liter. I know of the essential argument about using
auto
> > engines but does anyone have any specific info on Crossflow and why it
> > may/may not work with the Rocket?
> >
> > Mace
> =======================================================
>
> I see no argument here.
> No question regarding the superiority of any late model auto engine.
> The choice, application, and installation are the key factors in a
> properly executed alliance of the aircraft and the auto engine.
> Jan Eggenfellner is a conservative builder/supplier of the Subaru.
> Check with him, and you will not receive an inflated answer.
>
> Several years back, I was planning a Rocket powered by a three rotor
> Wankel. (an easy 300hp). My second choice was the six cylinder
> Subaru. Due to other commitments these never materialized.
> I believe, someone from Texas beat me to the Rocket Wankel.
> Check with Mark on that one.
>
> I end all my seminars/dissertations with the statement:
> "If automotive technology progressed at the same rate as
> general aviation, we would all be driving model A's"
> (or, possibly, Model T's)
>
> Archie
>
>
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 |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "u2nelson" <u2nelson@prodigy.net>
>
> When was the last time you saw a Model T or A with a GPS moving map, fuel
> injected or constructed 100%AL or using composites? I think GA has
> progressed more than you give it credit. GA is what it is do to a variety
of
> factors, but progress is being made, just look at our homebuilt, and look
at
> the Cirrus. We don't sell 10,000 units of the exact same design like the
> car industry enjoys, so that pretty much limits how much you can spend on
> development. Honestly, the Lycoming IO540 is a pretty sophisticated
design,
> especially with after market ignition and fuel injection and the basic
> engine is dang near bullet proof. Let us all know how the Subaru works
> out...My hats off to you for your commitment to experimentation, never the
> easy road to take.
>
> Greg Nelson
Greg, Tom,
Without turning this forum into a long, tedious, discussion full of points
and counterpoints, perhaps there was some ambiguity in my last transmission.
For specific info e-mail me direct archie97@earthlink.net
As far as fuel injection is concerned, the only one I have seen that
impresses me in aviation is the Aerosance/Continental FADEC.
It is a pulsed, on demand, computerized compensating system.
The others are constant flow, run rich, and are not as fuel efficient,
not to mention occasional hard starting.
By GA, I meant manufacturers such as Piper, Cessna, Mooney,
Lycoming, Franklin, Continental, etc. The new ones look like the old.
How can a company making the same part for 50 years, still
have AD's? We know why. I would be out of business doing that!
If a shop such as mine can take an aircraft engine,
and without any speed equipment increase it power output by 29% at the
same rpm, do you think that is beyond the factory capability?
All this, and with oil consumption currently at 1qt per almost 40hrs.
This was developed with modern technology instrumentation and
machining processes.
Thank goodness for experimenters and homebuilders, for they have
some latitude to perform these functions. Take in some of my forums,
and I will expound in detail, my disappointment with the majors,
resting on their,(ahem), laurels from a previous century.
BTW Tom, do you think another 30-40 hp would be nice?
how about using automotive oil, and not changing it for 40
+ hours or more, and it does not come out black?
This is not rocket science it exists now.
If you still lap valves when doing a top overhaul, the equipment
used is not precision. Find someone who has it.
I have been told if you do a search on my name some of these will
turn up.
Archie Frangoudis,
Land-Air Design, LLC
Archie's Racing Service
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 |
|
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Bobby Sather" <sather@charter.net>
Your right Tom, its after market items and as far as composite goes. All
cars today have some composite and some are the biggest share composite. If
you still have a car with a carb and no solid state computerized
electronics, its several years old as all the new ones have pretty much
evolved. And as far a GPS goes, cars now have GPS, Lo-Jack, street finders
and will tell how far it is a eating spot or your favorite motel/hotel. Yep
GA in still running on molasses unless it government or homebuilt.
Experimental builders are more inovative by todays standards than GA.
Do Not Archive
RL Sather
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Rocket-List: Crossflow
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
>
> Speaking as a guy with an thirty year old IO-540 J4A5 in my flying Harmon
> Rocket. BTW, it runs great and never misses a beat, so I am not
> complaining.
>
> Is it not true that Lycoming has not developed a new engine or even
updated
> the 320, 360, 540 series engines? In twenty, thirty, maybe even forty
> years?
>
> As you said, the electric ignition and improvements in fuel injection have
> come from after market companies not Lycoming. Of course, "if it is not
> broke, don't fit it" may apply.
>
> Tom Gummo
> Apple Valley, CA
> Harmon Rocket-II
> 165 hours.
>
> do not archive
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "u2nelson" <u2nelson@prodigy.net>
> To: <rocket-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Crossflow
>
>
> > --> Rocket-List message posted by: "u2nelson" <u2nelson@prodigy.net>
> >
> > When was the last time you saw a Model T or A with a GPS moving map,
fuel
> > injected or constructed 100%AL or using composites? I think GA has
> > progressed more than you give it credit. GA is what it is do to a
variety
> of
> > factors, but progress is being made, just look at our homebuilt, and
look
> at
> > the Cirrus. We don't sell 10,000 units of the exact same design like
the
> > car industry enjoys, so that pretty much limits how much you can spend
on
> > development. Honestly, the Lycoming IO540 is a pretty sophisticated
> design,
> > especially with after market ignition and fuel injection and the basic
> > engine is dang near bullet proof. Let us all know how the Subaru works
> > out...My hats off to you for your commitment to experimentation, never
the
> > easy road to take.
> >
> > Greg Nelson
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Archie
> > To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Rocket-List: Crossflow
> >
> >
> > --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
> >
> >
> > > Gents,
> > > I've checked the achieves and only find one or two mentions of
> > this
> > > so I'll throw it out. Has anyone considered using the Crossflow 6
> > Cylinder
> > > Subaru engine on a Rocket? As opposed to the other Subaru engine
> builders
> > > who claim a maximum of 205hp, Crossflow claims HP as high as 350 in a
> > > turbocharged 3.3 liter. I know of the essential argument about using
> auto
> > > engines but does anyone have any specific info on Crossflow and why it
> > > may/may not work with the Rocket?
> > >
> > > Mace
> > =======================================================
> >
> > I see no argument here.
> > No question regarding the superiority of any late model auto engine.
> > The choice, application, and installation are the key factors in a
> > properly executed alliance of the aircraft and the auto engine.
> > Jan Eggenfellner is a conservative builder/supplier of the Subaru.
> > Check with him, and you will not receive an inflated answer.
> >
> > Several years back, I was planning a Rocket powered by a three rotor
> > Wankel. (an easy 300hp). My second choice was the six cylinder
> > Subaru. Due to other commitments these never materialized.
> > I believe, someone from Texas beat me to the Rocket Wankel.
> > Check with Mark on that one.
> >
> > I end all my seminars/dissertations with the statement:
> > "If automotive technology progressed at the same rate as
> > general aviation, we would all be driving model A's"
> > (or, possibly, Model T's)
> >
> > Archie
> >
> >
>
>
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! --
|