|
|
Mark Steitle wrote:
Kelly, I just couldn't hold my tongue any longer. So far, your has been the only reply. ;-)
Mark
Mark, for many of us, this argument is old and pointless. Gary Casey summed up his view nicely with, "I'm happy with the 50-year-old Lycoming in my ES." The translation for that is, "I made a decision, and I will go to any idiotic length necessary to defend that decision." Just take a look at his arguments:
>Liquid cooling helps, as a smaller bore with cooler surface temperatures allow a higher compression ratio, but the slower-running large displacement aircraft engine has lower friction, negating the benefit of the higher compression ratio. Now tell me again, what does the method of cooling have to do with the size of the bore and compression ratio?
>An efficient radiator can cool with less pressure drop, but it requires about twice the air flow of an air-cooled engine. So, the energy expended is a wash. What is he trying to argue?
>The liquid-cooled engine can be more compact, reducing the frontal area, but the
> frontal area of a side-by-side seating aircraft is usually determined by the
> cabin, not the engine. Obviously, he didn't bother or didn't wish to consider the aerodynamic compromise that is an engine cowl.
>The list goes on.
Yes, it does. On to one pointless red herring and misdirection after another. Pfft! Why bother. I chose an engine based on the merits that I thought were important. I assume they did the same, and that one of their merits was that they would not have to understand what they were doing. Education is expensive, so there is merit in avoiding it. After years of this noise, the only argument I have left to offer is building a safe airplane and keeping my money in my wallet.
P.S. My feelings don't extend to reciprocating piston engines.
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Kelly Troyer <keltro@att.net <mailto:keltro@att.net>> wrote:
Well said Mark !!......................<:)
Kelly Troyer
*"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)*
"13B ROTARY"_ Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold
"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com <mailto:msteitle@gmail.com>>
*To:* Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net
<mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net>>
*Sent:* Sun, May 29, 2011 2:39:57 PM
*Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine
Ted, If you are of the belief that Lycoming or Continental are "safe"
choices, may I direct you to the FAA accident database? It is
full of evidence to the contrary. Thanks for mentioning the Fly Rotary group (www.flyrotary.com
<http://www.flyrotary.com/>) of which I have participated in since
the mid 90's. A couple of other good rotary sites are
www.rotaryeng.net <http://www.rotaryeng.net/> and
www.rotaryaviation.com <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/>. There
are many flying examples of the rotary engine being a viable
alternative engine. While it is definitely not a plug-n-play
solution and nor is it for everyone, it has proven to be a
reliable aircraft powerplant. But, as they say, the devil's in
the details. As with the Lycoming or Continental options, I
wouldn't call the rotary a totally "safe" choice either. A broken
oil line can ruin your day as quickly as a broken crankshaft. If
you address the peripheral systems, the engine itself is extremely
robust. (My 350hp peripheral-ported 3-rotor engine has only 4
moving parts, all of which spin rather than stop and start, but
that's a topic for another posting.) The rotary has shown to be
more than capable of producing very high power in racing
applications. In the Mazda series they typically run the engines
for one or two seasons without overhaul. The rotary is a very
tough little engine!
Is the Lycoming engine "safer"? Maybe, maybe not. But if "safe"
is the target to which we aim, then we should all stay on the
ground. Mark Lancair ES, n/a 3-rotor
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:32 AM, <tednoel@cfl.rr.com
<mailto:tednoel@cfl.rr.com>> wrote:
While I am confident the Eagle V8 will do well, based on the
designer and many bits of the internals, it has proven very
expensive and time-consuming. Check in on the FlyRotary email
list (Marv runs it). There are rotaries of the appropriate
power flying with good records. Many of the headaches have
already had their aspirin taken. Unless you are a bit of a
masochist (which I didn't think I was), unfortunately the
1930's boat anchors remain the "safe" choice.
Ted Noel
---- Rod Pharis <rpharis@verizon.net
<mailto:rpharis@verizon.net>> wrote:
> Many years back an apparently qualified and well healed
small company began
> development of a 572 cid Chevy big-block engine converted
for aircraft
> applications, including a less expensive replacement for
certain turboprop
> power-plants. They spent piles of money and many years of
work, including a
> special speed reduction unit. In the end, not a single
original part was
> retained, including the spark plugs. The company was in
poor financial
> health at that point, and I believe another company bought
that company and
> the rights, and they apparently did no better with the
project even though
> they inherited many lessons learned from the first owners.
As far as I can
> tell, the project was abandoned. A single guy would have
little chance at
> success with a one-off attempt. Don't even think about
it!!!!!!!!!!! Even
> a small modification to an existing successful airplane
engine would likely
> take deep pockets to be successful.
>
> Rod Pharis
>
> From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net
<mailto:lml@lancaironline.net>] On Behalf Of Gary
> Casey
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:23 AM
> To: lml@lancaironline.net <mailto:lml@lancaironline.net>
> Subject: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine
>
> I have read with interest many of the posts on this subject.
I too, had
> considered an automotive engine to the point I acquired the
engine and
> designed most of the systems. I was convinced (and still
am) that an
> automotive V8 run inverted, turbocharged with direct drive
to the prop could
> do an effective job. But....
> Brent makes many good points and I agree with them, but
engines are
> inanimate objects and don't respond to the intent of the
designers - they
> only respond to the details of the design itself. So what
makes the
> liquid-cooled automotive engine inappropriate for an
aircraft application?
> Liquid cooling helps, as a smaller bore with cooler surface
temperatures
> allow a higher compression ratio, but the slower-running
large displacement
> aircraft engine has lower friction, negating the benefit of
the higher
> compression ratio. An efficient radiator can cool with less
pressure drop,
> but it requires about twice the air flow of an air-cooled
engine. The
> liquid-cooled engine can be more compact, reducing the
frontal area, but the
> frontal area of a side-by-side seating aircraft is usually
determined by the
> cabin, not the engine. The list goes on.
>
> Is the aircraft engine old-fashioned? The configuration has
been around for
> a long, long time, but that doesn't have much to do with the
effectiveness
> of the engine. The engineers at Lycoming and Continental
have cherry-picked
> the technologies developed by others that apply to aircraft
engines, and
> developed some of their own. Bottom line? I'm happy with
the 50-year-old
> Lycoming in my ES. And while I usually wish for a
turbocharger when getting
> out of my 3800 ft, 7000 ft elevation runway, once in the air
the fuel
> efficiency of the high-compression, naturally-aspirated
engine is nice.
>
> Gary Casey
> ES #157, naturally aspirated Lyc IO-540
--
For archives and unsub
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|
|