X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 16:47:41 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTPS id 4997657 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 29 May 2011 15:40:36 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.161.52; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so2076764fxm.25 for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:39:58 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=EJDArokJYRr1EHuVlOoHBNU+HfaZm1eiS89qmQ9CR+FMUQnK6hCSpAZG/D2iwxhf2d QTyL0qmYwNkTfADUGY1UajX+239a2dZ/nRwIx+jr9+Z2P50PMFQ0HoUrFNomuE0kJHZo HEx38DiasrDXIiKJBmq2G0ZOrwkmBsiTWiyOk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.63.139 with SMTP id b11mr3403988fai.147.1306697997961; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.87.4 with HTTP; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:39:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 14:39:57 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine From: Mark Steitle X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151748e02eff4a8804a46f55cb --00151748e02eff4a8804a46f55cb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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) of which I have participated in since the mid 90's. A couple of other good rotary sites are www.rotaryeng.net and 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, 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 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] On Behalf Of > Gary > > Casey > > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:23 AM > > To: 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 > --00151748e02eff4a8804a46f55cb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ted,=A0

If you are of the belief that Lycoming or Contin= ental are "safe" choices, may I direct you to the FAA accident da= tabase? =A0It is full of evidence to the contrary.=A0

<= div> Thanks for mentioning the Fly Rotary group (www.flyrotary.com) of which I have participated in since the mid = 90's. =A0A couple of other good rotary sites are www.rotaryeng.net and www.rotaryaviation.com. =A0There are many flying examples of th= e rotary engine being a viable alternative engine. =A0While it is definitel= y not a plug-n-play solution and nor is it for everyone, it has proven to b= e a reliable aircraft powerplant. =A0But, as they say, the devil's in t= he details. =A0As with the Lycoming or Continental options, I wouldn't = call the rotary a totally "safe" choice either. =A0A broken oil l= ine can ruin your day as quickly as a broken crankshaft. =A0If you address = the peripheral systems, the engine itself is extremely robust. =A0(My 350hp= peripheral-ported 3-rotor engine has only 4 moving parts, all of which spi= n rather than stop and start, but that's a topic for another posting.)= =A0=A0The rotary has shown to be more than capable of producing very high p= ower in racing applications. =A0In the Mazda series they typically run the = engines for one or two seasons without overhaul. =A0The rotary is a very to= ugh little engine!

Is the Lycoming engine "safer"? =A0Maybe, may= be not. =A0But if "safe" is the target to which we aim, then we s= hould all stay on the ground.=A0=A0

Mark=A0
<= div>Lancair ES, n/a 3-rotor

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:32 AM, <tednoel@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
While I am confident the Eagle V8 will do well, based on the designer and m= any 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 (whic= h I didn't think I was), unfortunately the 1930's boat anchors rema= in the "safe" choice.

Ted Noel


---- Rod Pharis <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 turbo= prop
> power-plants. =A0They spent piles of money and many years of work, inc= luding a
> special speed reduction unit. =A0In the end, not a single original par= t was
> retained, including the spark plugs. =A0The company was in poor financ= ial
> health at that point, and I believe another company bought that compan= y and
> the rights, and they apparently did no better with the project even th= ough
> they inherited many lessons learned from the first owners. =A0As far a= s I can
> tell, the project was abandoned. =A0A single guy would have little cha= nce at
> success with a one-off attempt. =A0Don't even think about it!!!!!!= !!!!! =A0Even
> a small modification to an existing successful airplane engine would l= ikely
> take deep pockets to be successful.
>
> Rod Pharis
>
> From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Gary
> Casey
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:23 AM
> To: lml@lancaironline.net=
> Subject: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine
>
> I have read with interest many of the posts on this subject. =A0I too,= had
> considered an automotive engine to the point I acquired the engine and=
> designed most of the systems. =A0I was convinced (and still am) that a= n
> automotive V8 run inverted, turbocharged with direct drive to the prop= could
> do an effective job. =A0But....
> 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. =A0So what makes the=
> liquid-cooled automotive engine inappropriate for an aircraft applicat= ion?
> Liquid cooling helps, as a smaller bore with cooler surface temperatur= es
> allow a higher compression ratio, but the slower-running large displac= ement
> aircraft engine has lower friction, negating the benefit of the higher=
> compression ratio. =A0An efficient radiator can cool with less pressur= e drop,
> but it requires about twice the air flow of an air-cooled engine. =A0T= he
> liquid-cooled engine can be more compact, reducing the frontal area, b= ut the
> frontal area of a side-by-side seating aircraft is usually determined = by the
> cabin, not the engine. =A0The list goes on.
>
> Is the aircraft engine old-fashioned? =A0The configuration has been ar= ound for
> a long, long time, but that doesn't have much to do with the effec= tiveness
> of the engine. =A0The engineers at Lycoming and Continental have cherr= y-picked
> the technologies developed by others that apply to aircraft engines, a= nd
> developed some of their own. =A0Bottom line? =A0I'm happy with the= 50-year-old
> Lycoming in my ES. =A0And while I usually wish for a turbocharger when= getting
> out of my 3800 ft, 7000 ft elevation runway, once in the air the fuel<= br> > 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/L= ist.html

--00151748e02eff4a8804a46f55cb--