X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 07:41:09 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms173013pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.13] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4993618 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 24 May 2011 22:11:09 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.173.13; envelope-from=rpharis@verizon.net Received: from WS1 ([unknown] [71.116.103.77]) by vms173013.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LLQ009RQBDJJV00@vms173013.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 24 May 2011 21:10:35 -0500 (CDT) From: "Rod Pharis" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-reply-to: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine X-Original-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 19:10:29 -0700 X-Original-Message-id: <00bc01cc1a80$ed19aa40$c74cfec0$@net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00BD_01CC1A46.40BAD240" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-index: AcwaN1Plnhlwvfy7SPmj5ya5nxWnkwAR7TNA Content-language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01CC1A46.40BAD240 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 ------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01CC1A46.40BAD240 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01CC1A46.40BAD240--