A Simple Auto Engine Conversion

"flybynightkarmarepair" wrote in message
...

FBNKR: This whole thread smacks of TROLL, but you can read what more of
what
I think, along with the E-Racer guy (Shirl Dickey), and a little from
the Belted Air Power reduction guy (Jess Myers) he

Peter: I agree about the Troll, but sometimes one just can't resist...

FBNKR: http://users.lmi.net/~ryoung/Sonerai/BOP.htm

FBNKR: You can also search this newsgroup for anything by Corky Scott, and
watch his chronicle. He never flew his auto engine conversion, after
working on it for years.

Peter: I had wondered about what Corky finally did, but did recall that he
was giving up on the auto conversion idea--although IIRC his aircraft was a
four seater.

The problematic word in the subject of this thread is "simple".

An aluminum V8 auto-derived engine is not an aircraft engine - yet. It
needs a lot of engineering work to become one. If the engineering is well
done, the resulting aircraft engine will be successful. If it isn't.....
Many auto conversions weren't. It isn't easy.

Auto engines are high revving compared to direct drive aircraft engines so
to get a reasonable power to weight ratio, a PSRU is needed. But, isn't a
PSRU heavy? Yes, but so is the crankshaft of a direct drive engine - it has
to be to handle the torque. Auto engines have light cranks which are just
as strong on a HP to HP comparison since they rev higher. HP is just torque
(Ft Lbs) times RPM divided by 5252. Compare the weight of a direct drive
crank vs. the crank + PSRU weight of an auto conversion - not so much
difference as thought.

To minimize the re-engineering, keep the engine core working as nearly the
same as in a road vehicle but make sure it uses the best forged racing parts
like rods and pistons for durability. Use the lightest flywheel that allows
an even idle.

The PSRU is just a special PTO (Power Take Off) with gears. It mounts to
the flywheel housing and connects to the flywheel with a flex plate.
Millions of PTO's are in use as irrigation pumps so somebody knows how to do
it. It takes all the gyroscopic and thrust loads away from the crank which
'sees' no loads except torque. Make it from billet aluminum and use the
best bearing money can buy. I'd use a very close tolerance planetary
gearset for durability.

It will withstand high contineous power if you keep it cool. Design the
radiator for worst case cooling conditions and then control the airflow with
variable baffles. I'd feed a pair 12" diameter "barrel" radiators with jet
like wing root air intakes and rear fusalage exhaust . I'd augment the
radiator outflow with engine exhaust which keeps the radiator intakes from
ingesting hot engine exhaust while increasing airflow through the radiator.

I'd use 100PSI racing type fuel injection with in-tank pumps to prevent
vapor lock. I'd use closed loop mixture control with an O2 sensor. No
fussy carburator - no carb ice.

Would I put this thing in an airplane and fly it over the mountains at
night? Not at first - not by a long shot. I'd build it on a trailer so I
could run it in non-noise sensitive areas. I'd take it to air shows to
entertain but mainly I'd just run it on the trailer trying to break it. If
after a few years I still couldn't break it, then maybe in an airplane.
Ground testing is the expensive part. 2000 hours at 10GPH = 20,000 gallons
at $4 each = $80,000. Nobody said it was cheap.

"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote

Would I put this thing in an airplane and fly it over the mountains at
night? Not at first - not by a long shot. I'd build it on a trailer so I
could run it in non-noise sensitive areas. I'd take it to air shows to
entertain but mainly I'd just run it on the trailer trying to break it.

How about putting on an airboat, and have fun, while trying to break it.
The chopping at the waves would put some gyroscopic loads on it that would
imitate, of even exceed the types of conditions that it would see on an
airplane, that you could not duplicate on a trailer.

I saw someone did that while developing a system, just recently. I plan to
do just that.

If after a few years I still couldn't break it, then maybe in an airplane.
Ground testing is the expensive part. 2000 hours at 10GPH = 20,000
gallons at $4 each = $80,000. Nobody said it was cheap.

While I agree with the need to thouroughly test a unit, I do question the
need to do 2,000 hours, unless you are going for certification. Running it,
tearing it down occasionally and carefully inspecting (including
magnafluxing) will give you all the information you need for deciding
whether it is going to go the distance, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:18:08 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote

If after a few years I still couldn't break it, then maybe in an airplane.
Ground testing is the expensive part. 2000 hours at 10GPH = 20,000
gallons at $4 each = $80,000. Nobody said it was cheap.

While I agree with the need to thouroughly test a unit, I do question the
need to do 2,000 hours, unless you are going for certification. Running it,
tearing it down occasionally and carefully inspecting (including
magnafluxing) will give you all the information you need for deciding
whether it is going to go the distance, IMHO.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Morgans.
You never fail to amaze! ;-)

You know so much....


- NOT -


- Barnyard BOb -

The more people I meet,
the more I like my dog
and George Carlin humor.

May he now rest in peace.

On Sep 5, 4:49*am, Barnyard BOb wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:18:08 -0400, "Morgans"

wrote:

"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote

If after a few years I still couldn't break it, then maybe in an airplane.
Ground testing is the expensive part. *2000 hours at 10GPH = 20,000
gallons at $4 each = $80,000. *Nobody said it was cheap.

While I agree with the need to thouroughly test a unit, I do question the
need to do 2,000 hours, unless you are going for certification. *Running it,
tearing it down occasionally and carefully inspecting (including
magnafluxing) will give you all the information you need for deciding
whether it is going to go the distance, IMHO.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Morgans.
You never fail to amaze! *;-)

You know so much....

* * * - NOT -

- Barnyard BOb -

The more people I meet,
the more I like my dog
and George Carlin humor.

May he now rest in peace.

This is the Rec. Aviation. HOMEBUILT group. Feel free to wander over
to the Rec. Aviation. CERTIFIED group to voice your concerns. You
really need to be addressing the correct group to get any respect..

Tailwinds.

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:24:52 -0700 (PDT), stol
wrote:

Morgans.
You never fail to amaze! *;-)

You know so much....

* * * - NOT -

- Barnyard BOb -

The more people I meet,
the more I like my dog
and George Carlin humor.

May he now rest in peace.

This is the Rec. Aviation. HOMEBUILT group. Feel free to wander over
to the Rec. Aviation. CERTIFIED group to voice your concerns. You
really need to be addressing the correct group to get any respect..

Tailwinds.

Ben

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Unless your name is Morgans...

** PHUCK OFF **

Get a life... and sense of humor!



- Barnyard BOb -

"Barnyard BOb" wrote

Unless your name is Morgans...

** PHUCK OFF **

Get a life... and sense of humor!

Uhhh, Bob?

As you always seemed to like correcting my speeling errarhs, I need to point
out that you spelled "PHUCK" wrong.

You seem to think this word is like a phone, somehow? gg
--
Jim in NC