X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:50:48 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 5003661 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 18:48:14 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.123; envelope-from=tednoel@cfl.rr.com X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=SOlsIBN44tkg4MqIq+y2aLZdhoA3kHpmiRsLue6rfnM= c=1 sm=0 a=9TeGTiT7SGcA:10 a=Jhy8mP4OLzYA:10 a=5zEv8FOEouFFTgTFH6HffA==:17 a=oCcaPWc0AAAA:8 a=vLEiEFL9HPhAY4N0T5IA:9 a=2-kZIZP5oFqvcnA_yJ4A:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=xVN1HzkulI05KyxN:21 a=ChPZfZTHiAH5ZD1m:21 a=4PR2P7QzAAAA:8 a=d7sug-iwR3qAboQ_ZigA:9 a=ebCmVCnmPG1mxsziPzQA:7 a=djSSOgbfo6cA:10 a=TMzp974viFdSURpZ:21 a=lfRBpfLHZKkjc7Dv:21 a=5zEv8FOEouFFTgTFH6HffA==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 97.101.50.108 Received: from [97.101.50.108] ([97.101.50.108:62197] helo=[192.168.0.104]) by cdptpa-oedge01.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id F2/D9-15242-A06BAED4; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 22:47:38 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <4DEAB610.4060109@cfl.rr.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 18:47:44 -0400 From: Ted Noel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020501000903090709000907" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020501000903090709000907 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gary, This is a fun conversation. On 6/4/2011 9:52 AM, Gary Casey wrote: > > My conclusions - opinions of the disadvantages: > > V-8 with reduction gear: > > Heavy - about 150 pound penalty > > Complex installation and systems > > Slight fuel consumption penalty > Lycoming IO-720 - 600# dry weight, 400 HP. Eagle 540 700# wet, 600 hp. A comparably sized automotive derivative engine can easily be lighter hp for hp. Because of internal design elements (advances in design possible because of liquid cooling, i.e. no gas used for cooling) modern liquid cooled engines can easily match or improve on air-cooled gas consumption. > > V-8 engine direct drive turbocharged: > > Heavy - about 75 pound penalty > > Complex installation and systems > No information, so I can't comment. The only one I could find was the WW1 Hispano-Suiza. Hardly relevant to the conversation. > > Rotary engine: > > Very complex installation and systems > > Heavy - up to 50 pound penalty > > Potentially fragile apex seals > > Hgh cooling drag > > Noisy > > Significant fuel consumption penalty increases the weight penalty > Mazda 13B engine FWF weight 325 # all up (200 HP. I couldn't find the 20B data quickly) The equivalent engine is the Lycoming IO-360 at 324-335 #. Sounds like a wash, or maybe a slight win for the rotary. Yes, the rotary is slightly thirsty, but the gap seal issue is ancient history. The newer engines have been bulletproof. > > Turbine engine: > > High initial cost > > High fuel consumption negates any weight savings > Amen. > > Misc. opinions: The liquid-cooled V-8 dates back to about 1918 when > Chevrolet built the first mass-produced one, so it's technology is > even older than the air-cooled engine's "30's technology" that someone > mentioned. > That may be true, but the resemblance between then and now is mostly coincidental. Liquid cooling has allowed major advances in design that are largely missing from air-cooled engines. Now part of the blame on the air-cooled side is due to regulatory ossification, but until completely new materials (e.g. ceramics) come into play, there's not much to gain. Choke can't go away, because the head of the cylinder will always be hotter than the base. Exhaust valve troubles won't go away because the cooling gradient between the valve and the head is so low compared to liquid cooled engines. The basic laws of physics just don't change. The constraints they impose limit solutions. > > Gary Casey > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1511/3680 - Release Date: 06/04/11 > --------------020501000903090709000907 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gary,

This is a fun conversation.

On 6/4/2011 9:52 AM, Gary Casey wrote:

My conclusions - opinions of the disadvantages:

 

V-8 with reduction gear:

Heavy - about 150 pound penalty

Complex installation and systems

Slight fuel consumption penalty

Lycoming IO-720 - 600# dry weight, 400 HP.  Eagle 540 700# wet, 600 hp. A comparably sized automotive derivative engine can easily be lighter hp for hp. Because of internal design elements (advances in design possible because of liquid cooling, i.e. no gas used for cooling) modern liquid cooled engines can easily match or improve on air-cooled gas consumption.

 

V-8 engine direct drive turbocharged:

Heavy - about 75 pound penalty

Complex installation and systems

No information, so I can't comment. The only one I could find was the WW1 Hispano-Suiza. Hardly relevant to the conversation.

 

Rotary engine:

Very complex installation and systems

Heavy - up to 50 pound penalty

Potentially fragile apex seals

Hgh cooling drag

Noisy

Significant fuel consumption penalty increases the weight penalty

Mazda 13B engine FWF weight 325 # all up (200 HP. I couldn't find the 20B data quickly) The equivalent engine is the Lycoming IO-360 at 324-335 #. Sounds like a wash, or maybe a slight win for the rotary. Yes, the rotary is slightly thirsty, but the gap seal issue is ancient history. The newer engines have been bulletproof.

 

Turbine engine:

High initial cost

High fuel consumption negates any weight savings

Amen.

 

Misc. opinions:  The liquid-cooled V-8 dates back to about 1918 when Chevrolet built the first mass-produced one, so it's technology is even older than the air-cooled engine's "30's technology" that someone mentioned.

That may be true, but the resemblance between then and now is mostly coincidental. Liquid cooling has allowed major advances in design that are largely missing from air-cooled engines. Now part of the blame on the air-cooled side is due to regulatory ossification, but until completely new materials (e.g. ceramics) come into play, there's not much to gain. Choke can't go away, because the head of the cylinder will always be hotter than the base. Exhaust valve troubles won't go away because the cooling gradient between the valve and the head is so low compared to liquid cooled engines. The basic laws of physics just don't change. The constraints they impose limit solutions.

 

Gary Casey

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1511/3680 - Release Date: 06/04/11

--------------020501000903090709000907--