V-8 powered Seabee

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Probably your biggest worry, compared to a Lycosaur, is cooling. The air
cooling of your classic aircraft engine is extremely reliable...if it cools
properly when it's initially installed, there's very little that can happen
to it to make it NOT cool. If the oil cooler quits working, the engine
probably will last long enough to get you to a runway (other than if it
spews oil everywhere, of course).

You're not going to match that level of reliability; your airplane will
have a water pump, water hoses, and radiator that the Lycosaur lacks and
thus can't stop running if they quit. The lesson here is probably to use
the best quality parts you can find (race-type hoses, etc.) and to oversize
the system... if you develop a coolant leak in flight, it's nice if your
plane has to lose five gallons of coolant before it starts to overheat
rather than five quarts. Gauge the heck out of it, too...you want to be
able to detect problems as early as possible. I'd try put together some
sort of annunciator system rather than depend on the pilot's eyes to catch
a fading gauge.

All good suggestions. Another tack on the cooling system failure would be to
select an auto engine (or engineer its conversion) such that loss of coolant
does not cause a catastrophic failure. For example (and it's only an example!)
the Mazda Wankel engine will happily continue to run and produce usable power
without any coolant remaining. It will likely never start again, however,
without a major rebuild. Why is this? Because when overheating, the aluminum
rotor housings expand more than the cast iron rotors, which precludes seizing
(unlike most piston engines). Parts of the engine permanently deform however,
causing insufficient compression once the engine cools. Thus, no start.

I guess my point is: sometimes we should try to prevent the failure, and other
times we should try to minimize the effect of the failure. There's a balance
in there somewhere.

I wonder what could be done along the lines of emergency cooling, like the
emergency ignition? The AVweb article about flying the Hawker Hurricane
makes me wonder about a spray-bar system for auto-engine conversions.
Could you gain some flying time if you had a system that would spray the
engine itself with water? And/Or some emergency cowl flaps that would open
and expose the engine case directly to the slipstream?

The radiator's area is many times the surface area of the engine's water
jacket. Plus the now empty water jacket makes a real nice air gap blanket for
the cylinders. You'd do better to engineer a coolant-loss makeup system.
IMHO. Unfortunately, "make-up coolant" weighs 7.5 lbs. / gallon. Fly in the
rain with a big funnel? Secondary use for that "relief tube" ? :-)

Or perhaps have the pistons machined from some alloy with a low Cte (titanium?)
and make them as undersized (relative to the cylinder diameter) as the rings
will permit.

Russell Kent

Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.

Bruce A. Frank

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been
flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every
auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type.

But look at the bright side: With this one, if the SeaBee engine fails,
you get to shoot the dead-stick landing in air-conditioned comfort. :-)

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:22:17 -0700, "Bart D. Hull"
wrote:

I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a
Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well.

But Continental and Lycoming had to convince a *very* skeptical FAA about
the reliability of the FADEC. They had to prove that the FADEC is at least
as reliable as two magnetos.

I remember an article, years ago, about what Porsche had to do to certify
the PFM engine for the Mooney. They had to prove the two independent
ignition systems *were* completely independent. I think they even had to
apply a sudden dead short across one, just to prove the other one would
keep running.

I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
install.

A good goal, and worthy of discussion. With one exception, the failures I
hear about have been fairly random, mostly related to the subsystems rather
than the core engine.

I think the lesson would be to strive for maximum redundancy. There
*should* be two completely independent ignition systems. Two batteries,
two electronics boxes, two sets of plug wires, two plugs per cylinder. The
second should be solely a backup, connected to *nothing* in common with the
primary system. If the primary system uses the distributor drive to time
the ignition, the backup system should run off a hall effect sensor on the
flywheel.

Buy a drycell battery and run it directly to the backup ignition
electronics...no connection to the primary bus. I say a drycell simply
because of their ability to hold a charge a long time. Test the ignition
momentarily during runup and slap a charger on the backup system every week
or so.

That way if your electrical system goes to hellandgone, you've got a
completely independent backup. The drycell should be sized to give you at
least a half-hour of flight time...I'm basing that on the required VFR fuel
reserve.

Probably your biggest worry, compared to a Lycosaur, is cooling. The air
cooling of your classic aircraft engine is extremely reliable...if it cools
properly when it's initially installed, there's very little that can happen
to it to make it NOT cool. If the oil cooler quits working, the engine
probably will last long enough to get you to a runway (other than if it
spews oil everywhere, of course).

You're not going to match that level of reliability; your airplane will
have a water pump, water hoses, and radiator that the Lycosaur lacks and
thus can't stop running if they quit. The lesson here is probably to use
the best quality parts you can find (race-type hoses, etc.) and to oversize
the system... if you develop a coolant leak in flight, it's nice if your
plane has to lose five gallons of coolant before it starts to overheat
rather than five quarts. Gauge the heck out of it, too...you want to be
able to detect problems as early as possible. I'd try put together some
sort of annunciator system rather than depend on the pilot's eyes to catch
a fading gauge.

I wonder what could be done along the lines of emergency cooling, like the
emergency ignition? The AVweb article about flying the Hawker Hurricane
makes me wonder about a spray-bar system for auto-engine conversions.
Could you gain some flying time if you had a system that would spray the
engine itself with water? And/Or some emergency cowl flaps that would open
and expose the engine case directly to the slipstream?

The PSRU is another single point failure item. I don't know what one could
do to increase redundancy, but plenty of design margin would be a good
start. Regular, in-depth inspections would be another...guy across from me
just found a crack in one plate of his gyro's PSRU.

Years ago, Kit Sondergren had an article in KITPLANES about terminating the
A-65 engine on his Mustang. He decided it needed to get overhauled, so he
tried a little experiment...he drained out all the oil and ran it on the
ground. IIRC, that engine ran at moderate throttle for something like a
half-hour before it really started to labor. I *like* that in an aircraft
engine. Nothing for cooling but the slipstream, two independent ignition
systems that generate their own power, and a engine that'll run for a
fairly long while with no oil at all. Lycomings and Continentals have one
thing in common with the dinosaurs: They leave mighty big shoes
to fill. :-)

I'm cautious about auto-engine conversions, but I wholly support those who
want to experiment with them. I like your attitude about wanting more
details to help improve your own work. Please continue to plug yourself
into information sources to build the safest engine possible.

Ron Wanttaja

Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.

Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What RPM?
What power level?

Unless producing realistic in-flight power....
is there value in this exercise beyond PR?


Barnyard BOb --

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message
...

Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.

Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What RPM?
What power level?

Unless producing realistic in-flight power....
is there value in this exercise beyond PR?


Barnyard BOb --

What PR? As I read it, if you're cooling system fails you basically have
enough time to set it down then you're looking at a new engine.

Eric

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:45:26 GMT, "Eric Miller"
wrote:

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message
.. .

Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.

Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What RPM?
What power level?

Unless producing realistic in-flight power....
is there value in this exercise beyond PR?


Barnyard BOb --

What PR? As I read it, if you're cooling system fails you basically have
enough time to set it down then you're looking at a new engine.

Eric

So far, I've not read of any reported catastrophic coolant losses in
the Ford powered airplanes. There have been instances (I've read of
two in Bruce's newletter) in which the head gasket began leaking.
This resulted in pressure readings that were abnormal, and the pilots
in both instances noticed them.

The airplanes were flown back to their home fields and the head
gaskets were replaced. In one instance, the airplane was a fair
distance from the field. Inflight coolant temperatures did not change
much, it was the pressure when the engine was shut down that got the
pilot's attention.

When you think about it, where where might a catastrophic leak occur
and how? Could a hose burst? A hole develop in the radiator? Those
things normally don't just blow up and spew out everything, they leak
very slowly at first, and a thorough preflight should include looking
for signs of coolant leakage I'd think.

When you put together a water cooled auto conversion, you use premium
hoses and radiators, right? You don't install aged and hardened parts
do you? Well I'm not going to anyway.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote:

What PR? As I read it, if you're cooling system fails you basically have
enough time to set it down then you're looking at a new engine.

Eric

So far, I've not read of any reported catastrophic coolant losses in
the Ford powered airplanes. There have been instances (I've read of
two in Bruce's newletter) in which the head gasket began leaking.
This resulted in pressure readings that were abnormal, and the pilots
in both instances noticed them.

The airplanes were flown back to their home fields and the head
gaskets were replaced. In one instance, the airplane was a fair
distance from the field. Inflight coolant temperatures did not change
much, it was the pressure when the engine was shut down that got the
pilot's attention.

When you think about it, where where might a catastrophic leak occur
and how? Could a hose burst? A hole develop in the radiator? Those
things normally don't just blow up and spew out everything, they leak
very slowly at first, and a thorough preflight should include looking
for signs of coolant leakage I'd think.

When you put together a water cooled auto conversion, you use premium
hoses and radiators, right? You don't install aged and hardened parts
do you? Well I'm not going to anyway.

Corky Scott

I wasn't implying that a catastrophic coolant failure was a likely event,
but rather that this was an unlikely PR angle.

Eric

There has been one incident where there was a sudden and complete loss
of coolant. The builder had capped an unused hose connection on the
block by folding a short length of heater hose in half and hose clamping
everything in place. Though the engine's head gaskets had not been set
up as recommended the plane had more than 800 hours on the meter. The
builder had no problems to this point because of his procedure of fully
bring the engine to temp before requiring take off power. This day he
neglected his own warm up rules and took off before full saturation. The
head gasket blew pressuring the coolant system. The pressure peak blew
the clamped hose plug and instantly emptied the coolant from the engine.

After trying to find a hole between traffic on a couple of highways the
pilot was flying parallel to traffic on his intended landing highway
when the engine quit. Flight time since loss of coolant at that point
was 15 minutes. The pilot and passenger in the Mustang II skidded on top
of a fence beside the road for several yards then tipped over into a
water filled ditch. Because of the recently installed roll over
structure he and his passenger walked away.

The plane had minimal damage and was quickly repaired. The engine when
disassembled was found to have not seized. Nothing wrong could be found
in the engine. After several days of running the engine the builder
finally discovered that the culprit was a water caused short in the
ignition system and steps were take to eliminate that weak point.

This incident is the only instantaneous loss of coolant of which I am
aware. Point is that sudden loss of coolant does not suddenly stop the
engines power making capability ....as would loss of fuel or loss of oil
in this or any other engine.

Corky Scott wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:45:26 GMT, "Eric Miller"
wrote:

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message
.. .

Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.

Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What RPM?
What power level?

Unless producing realistic in-flight power....
is there value in this exercise beyond PR?


Barnyard BOb --

What PR? As I read it, if you're cooling system fails you basically have
enough time to set it down then you're looking at a new engine.

Eric

So far, I've not read of any reported catastrophic coolant losses in
the Ford powered airplanes. There have been instances (I've read of
two in Bruce's newletter) in which the head gasket began leaking.
This resulted in pressure readings that were abnormal, and the pilots
in both instances noticed them.

The airplanes were flown back to their home fields and the head
gaskets were replaced. In one instance, the airplane was a fair
distance from the field. Inflight coolant temperatures did not change
much, it was the pressure when the engine was shut down that got the
pilot's attention.

When you think about it, where where might a catastrophic leak occur
and how? Could a hose burst? A hole develop in the radiator? Those
things normally don't just blow up and spew out everything, they leak
very slowly at first, and a thorough preflight should include looking
for signs of coolant leakage I'd think.

When you put together a water cooled auto conversion, you use premium
hoses and radiators, right? You don't install aged and hardened parts
do you? Well I'm not going to anyway.

Corky Scott

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding

While trying to find the time to finish mine.

Some years ago a company was building Ford engines for installation in
homebuilts. They did a couple of experiments of running the engine, with
a prop, without coolant. On both occasions the broken-in engines ran for
30+ minutes. Both stopped due to expansion of the pistons in the bores.
When the engines cooled the coolant systems were filled and the engines
started. Both ran and turned the prop at the same rpm. But also both
engine's head gaskets were shot and the metallurgy of both the heads and
the pistons had changed to the point of all having to be relegated to
the scrap pile. Crank and rod bearings were still in good condition.

Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What RPM?
What power level?

Unless producing realistic in-flight power....
is there value in this exercise beyond PR?


Barnyard BOb --

What PR? As I read it, if you're cooling system fails you basically have
enough time to set it down then you're looking at a new engine.

Eric
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I sincerely and most humbly apologize.
My generosity was aimed to cut these defunct folks some slack.
However, I have no problem seeing it your way. g


Barnyard BOb --

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote I sincerely and most humbly
apologize.
My generosity was aimed to cut these defunct folks some slack.
However, I have no problem seeing it your way. g


Barnyard BOb --

I think that's called "damning with faint praise" =D

Eric

"Bart D. Hull" wrote:


I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
install.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dream on. There are no details to make your auto-conversion
more successful than a LYC or Cont.

Successfully pass a course in statistical analysis and you may
begin to see the light. The odds of your one shot conversion
performing remotely close to time proven aircraft engines is
slim to none unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars
laying around and some bright engineers willing to baby sit
your R&D until the worst of the bugs are ironed out.

Never mind that a minor bug can be lethal and your project
may never qualify for hull or liability insurance. Remember,
those aviation insurance guys are more conservative than I.
They have no desire to risk paying out one million dollars on
your crap shoot or buy you another hull for a second attempt
to outdo LYC or Continental at their own professional game.

Barnyard BOb - once again predictable