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