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?  

Colyn


On May 31, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Ted Noel wrote:

> Swaid,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Garrett turbochargers and wastegates are reliable as the day is long, and run on Continentals and Lycomings every day.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I expect to start testing today. News when available.
>
> Ted Noel
> N540TF
>
>
> *****
>
> "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! "
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html