---- Rod Pharis <
rpharis@verizon.net> wrote:
> 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