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 4997620 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:20:32 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.161.52; envelope-from=indigoaviation@gmail.com Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so2031425fxm.25 for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 09:19:55 -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=IwHkVU6VoAJNlbyppU9xZHKugPCUMe0oGNBIU/mGnC0VZBsfvV0OK+m86os/gM/qy/ m3jrihuIrSO7g7kwZZr24MSfo7soLPeFMjL2oe4pyGOXkKSUVHiMdF++vuF8aw/N1M7L vN8A4U6FO1E5RsS84EFYxcjuhxoqs6XISbmmU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.7.8 with SMTP id b8mr2978511fab.19.1306685995714; Sun, 29 May 2011 09:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.74.129 with HTTP; Sun, 29 May 2011 09:19:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 12:19:55 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine From: swaid rahn X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174785829b89a704a46c8a9b --0015174785829b89a704a46c8a9b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The last time I checked in 1930 the TSIO-550 Teledyne engine was not developed yet. I don't think the Lancair 4P would have been anywhere as successful if Lance tried to use a converted V8 automotive engine in the Lancair 4P program. Continental has continuously improved and engineered an ever improving power plant for today's modern aircraft. In fact the Continental factory took Jack Hickham's 4P down to Mobile Al. to the engine factory and did all of his flight testing free of charge for him because he was one of the first to use the FADEC system on his aircraft. Continental engineers flew and perfected the FADEC on his airframe and used the data toward the certification of FADEC. I know this as fact, I did Jack"s EAA tech Counselor visits and I also weighted his aircraft and did his initiall weight and balance for him. Also what kind of Quality Improvement Process do you have with Auto Engine Conversions. You want get any help from Detroit as nothing is stock anyway not to mention there liability position. The FAA has this thing called FAR 39, it's the A.D. regulation and yes we hate em cause they cost us money but it saves lives and property. Plus there is a fleet of engines to gather data on and work out the kinks. Then you have the fact that when your acft breaks out of town, you would be lucky to find any support at the airport for that conversion. And no I am not speaking bad about A&P mechanics because I am one also (A&P,I.A.) what I am saying is you will have something very exotic without any good data to reference and will take much longer to trouble shoot and find the right parts for repair. Then there is the safety issue. Don't try to fool yourself into thinking Converted V8's are ANYWHERE as safe as certified aircraft engines. You also have all of the unproven systems to make the engine run as additional failure points. We had a Vesta V8 in a RV-10 almost kill a Pilot and his daughter in Ridgeland S.C. It had a cockpit fire (total loss) on the taxiway after landing and they almost did not get out alive. It was only a fuel line but he lost years of effort and thousand of dollars, he was extremely lucky it could have been worse! I also did his Weight and Balance. They were 350 LBS. MORE THAN THE AIRCRAFT ENGINE MODEL RV-10! The owners were upset to say the least. Weight and Balance issues. Always heaver, see above. Cost. The owners of N450HP had over 85 thousand in the firewall fwd package of their EngineAir V8. The above reasons are why we removed an EngineAir V8 from N450HP. Don't dismiss the safety record of a certified engine, alot of it was paid for in blood. The choice of engine decision should not be taken lightly. There is much at risk: money, time, safety, reliability to think about. Swaid Rahn On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 8:32 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 > -- Swaid L. Rahn Indigo Aviation, Inc. 940 Mock Road Springfield, Ga. 31329 Cell 912.655.0966 --0015174785829b89a704a46c8a9b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The last time I checked in 1930=A0the TSIO-550 Teledyne engine was not= developed yet. I don't think the Lancair 4P would have been anywhere a= s successful if Lance tried to use a converted V8 automotive engine in the = Lancair 4P program. Continental has continuously improved and engineered an= ever improving power plant for today's modern aircraft. In fact the Co= ntinental factory took Jack Hickham's 4P=A0down to Mobile Al. to the en= gine factory and did all of his flight testing free=A0of charge for him bec= ause he was one of the first to use the FADEC system on his aircraft. Conti= nental engineers=A0flew and perfected the FADEC on his airframe and used th= e data toward the certification of FADEC. I know this as fact, I did Jack&q= uot;s EAA tech Counselor visits and I also weighted his aircraft and did hi= s initiall weight and balance for him.
=A0Also what kind of Quality Improvement Process do you have with Auto= Engine Conversions. You want get any help from Detroit as nothing is stock= anyway not to mention there liability position. The FAA has this thing cal= led FAR 39, it's the A.D. regulation and yes we hate em cause they cost= us money but it saves lives and property. Plus there is a fleet of engines= to gather data on and work out the kinks.
=A0Then you have the fact that when your acft breaks out of town, you = would be lucky to find any support at the airport for that conversion. And = no I am not speaking bad about A&P mechanics because I am one also (A&a= mp;P,I.A.) what I am saying is you will have something very exotic without = any good data to reference and will take much longer to trouble shoot and f= ind the right parts for repair.
Then there is the safety issue. Don't try to fool yourself into th= inking Converted V8's are ANYWHERE as safe as certified aircraft engine= s. You also have all of the unproven systems to make the engine run as addi= tional failure points. We had a Vesta V8 in a RV-10=A0almost kill a Pilot a= nd his daughter in Ridgeland S.C. It had a cockpit fire (total loss)=A0on t= he taxiway after landing and they almost did not get out alive. It was only= a fuel line but he lost years of effort and thousand of dollars, he was ex= tremely lucky it could have been worse! I also did his Weight and Balance. = They were 350 LBS. MORE THAN THE AIRCRAFT ENGINE MODEL RV-10! The owners we= re upset to say the least.
=A0Weight and Balance issues. Always heaver, see above.
Cost. The owners of N450HP had over 85 thousand in the firewall fwd pa= ckage of their EngineAir V8.
The above reasons are why we removed an EngineAir V8 from N450HP.
Don't dismiss the safety record of a certified engine, alot of it = was paid for in blood.=A0
The choice of engine decision should not be taken lightly. There is mu= ch at risk: money, time, safety, reliability to think about.
=A0
Swaid Rahn

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 8:32 AM, <tednoel@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
While I am confident the Eagle V= 8 will do well, based on the designer and many bits of the internals, it ha= s proven very expensive and time-consuming. Check in on the FlyRotary email= list (Marv runs it). There are rotaries of the appropriate power flying wi= th 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), unf= ortunately the 1930's boat anchors remain the "safe" choice.<= br>
Ted Noel


---- Rod Pharis <rpharis@verizon.net> wrote:
> Many years back an app= arently qualified and well healed small company began
> development o= f 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 w= ork, including a
> special speed reduction unit. =A0In the end, not a= single original part was
> retained, including the spark plugs. =A0The company was in poor financ= ial
> 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. =A0As far a= s I can
> tell, the project was abandoned. =A0A single guy would have= little chance 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 Phari= s
>
> 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) th= at an
> automotive V8 run inverted, turbocharged with direct drive to= the prop could
> do an effective job. =A0But....
> Brent makes many good points a= nd I agree with them, but engines are
> inanimate objects and don'= ;t respond to the intent of the designers - they
> only respond to th= e 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 te= mperatures
> allow a higher compression ratio, but the slower-running= large displacement
> aircraft engine has lower friction, negating the benefit of the higher=
> compression ratio. =A0An efficient radiator can cool with less pre= ssure drop,
> but it requires about twice the air flow of an air-cool= ed engine. =A0The
> 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 d= etermined 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 wi= th the effectiveness
> of the engine. =A0The engineers at Lycoming an= d Continental have cherry-picked
> the technologies developed by others that apply to aircraft engines, a= nd
> developed some of their own. =A0Bottom line? =A0I'm happy wi= th the 50-year-old
> Lycoming in my ES. =A0And while I usually wish f= or 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 n= ice.
>
> Gary Casey
> ES #157, naturally aspirated Lyc IO= -540


--



--
Swaid L. Rahn
Indigo Aviation, Inc.
940 Mock Road
Sprin= gfield, Ga. 31329
Cell 912.655.0966


--0015174785829b89a704a46c8a9b--