X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:42:37 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.62] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4999454 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:44:50 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.62; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=XEHym0lrz8kwwzleSUI9bv3PNVTo+2PwraNAOrm8MhJohZfP62pY3vlMIK1Vkgdm; h=Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [216.57.118.194] (helo=[192.168.1.100]) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QRUrP-0005g0-D8 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:44:16 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine From: Colyn Case In-Reply-To: X-Original-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:44:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Message-Id: <601BEEDF-9627-4803-A537-E845D00B9C0E@earthlink.net> References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da940299f67f4cf1f68a03d93307153a1cbf9350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 216.57.118.194 Ted, I think you make some reasonable arguments about the design. The missing part is the interaction of the design and the environment it = operates in. Isn't that what AD's are about? =20 Colyn On May 31, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Ted Noel wrote: > Swaid, >=20 > Your comments below are part of what drives me nuts in this = conversation. A fuel line failure is NOT an engine issue. It is a = systems issue that applies to every aircraft that ever flew (except = electrics). Thus, using it as a condemnation of a one-off application is = not germane to the topic. >=20 > Electronic ignition systems are as reliable as the day is long. Solid = state electronics generally last longer than whatever they're stuck in. = And I have redundant computers, with automotive exhaust oxygen sensors = to let me get the induction and ignition maps exactly right. >=20 > LS-1 coils at 1 per plug are as reliable as the day is long. Millions = of cars have proved that, and there's no high-altitude issue, because of = their construction. >=20 > Automotive injectors are incredibly reliable, and I've got two sets, = user selectable, so if my wiring fails to one, the other will work. = (BTW, I expect to select alternate injectors and computers on a calendar = basis, so all will be known-good all the time.) >=20 > The engine internals are designed to be able to run all day at 7,000 = RPM, but I'm rev-limiting to 3,500. I can't imagine needing more than = the 600 hp I make at that speed. The hydraulic roller lifters should = have no problem, since billions of them run forever with no problems. >=20 > Where do we have concerns? The gearbox. It was designed with the help = of Timken's helicopter people to run at 1,000 HP continuously. It has = separate lubrication and oil cooling, with a full suite of sensors. It = also has three helical cut gears so that it has 3.4 teeth engaged at all = times, unlike spur gear setups with 1 tooth engagement. The thrust = bearing is designed for 1,000 HP. >=20 > Garrett turbochargers and wastegates are reliable as the day is long, = and run on Continentals and Lycomings every day. >=20 > Have I missed something? Maybe. The designer is very experienced, and = Don Goetz flies behind a Continental he prepared. He's designed = everything from stationary power generator engines to Indy race engines = to aircraft engines for DARPA. I think he's answered a lot of questions. = Did he miss anything? Maybe. That's what testing is for. But as for the = internals, any speed shop can repair the engine for a lot less than your = Lyconental. The only part that isn't field repairable is the gearbox. >=20 > Do I have a risk of failure? Yes. Do you? Yes. The prime difference = between us is that Lyconental failures are better known from a large = statistical database. Mine are somewhat predictable, but don't have the = experience yours have. >=20 > I expect to start testing today. News when available. >=20 > Ted Noel > N540TF >=20 >=20 > ***** >=20 > "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! " >=20 > -- > For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html