Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [65.33.166.167] (account <marv@lancaironline.net>)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.0b8)
  with HTTP id 1790960 for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 17:36:36 -0400
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] V8 engines
To: lml
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.4.0b8
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 17:36:36 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1790960@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <52548863F8A5D411B530005004759A931C2EBD@QBERT>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for George Braly <gwbraly@gami.com>:

As one observer of the early development of aircraft noted:

Water cooling an aircraft engine makes about as much sense as air cooling a
submarine.
	
Unkown early Naval Aviator 


-----Original Message-----
>>>I have been an "engine design hobbyist" for many years, and I have concluded
that for our size aircraft the ideal piston engine configuration is the
inverted direct drive turbocharged liquid-cooled V8.  It has the potential
for greater power/weight, more reliability and less noise than existing
engines.  I think the Zehrbach approach is close to the "correct" one, but
not quite.  I don't see the value in the dry sump or the long propshaft
extension.  Also, for lower-powered applications like my ES it looks like a
bit of an overkill.<<<