V-8 powered Seabee

"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

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. :-)

Ron Wanttaja
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hopefully, you are reaching more than just the choir. g


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
snip
I think the lesson would be to strive for maximum redundancy. There
*should* be two completely independent ignition systems.
snip
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.

The project I'm working on (1924 Epps Light Monoplane replica) motivated
me to learn about modern motorcycle engines. The original engine in the
original plane was an Indian Chief motorcycle engine. From photos it
looked like he initially had it set up as a direct drive, then
subsequently built a chain drive PSRU.

At some point before the plane was sold, it was converted to a Lawrance
A-3 engine. I've heard two stories about why he changed the engine.
One is that he wanted more power (28 hp for the Lawrance vs. 17 hp for
the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain breaking.

In trying to decide what engine to put on the replica, I did a lot of
research on modern motorcycle engines. I found that there are modern
V-Twin engines (Honda VT1100 and Kawasaki 1500) that already have two
spark plugs per cylinder. They do not have redundant ignition systems,
but they lend themselves to building your own.

You pointed out that the PSRU is a single point of failure. One
attraction with many modern motorcycle engines is that most have a well
engineered gear reduction system in place. The down side of it is that
there are usually 4 or 5 reduction ratios more than you need, and there
is a substantial weight penalty associated with the integral transmission.

One interesting motor I found is the Honda series of V-4 engines.
Though they have only one plug per cylinder, they have dual spark boxes.
Some riders I know have lost half their ignition system and had a hard
time telling something was wrong; they just seemed to be down a bit on
power, even though they were running on only two cylinders out of four.

The biggest down side to the use of a modern motorcycle engine in a
plane is that so few people have done it; you are truly experimenting,
which entails obvious risks.

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:47:32 GMT, David Hill
wrote:

The project I'm working on (1924 Epps Light Monoplane replica) motivated
me to learn about modern motorcycle engines. The original engine in the
original plane was an Indian Chief motorcycle engine. From photos it
looked like he initially had it set up as a direct drive, then
subsequently built a chain drive PSRU.

At some point before the plane was sold, it was converted to a Lawrance
A-3 engine. I've heard two stories about why he changed the engine.
One is that he wanted more power (28 hp for the Lawrance vs. 17 hp for
the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain breaking.

Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice
reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekely. :-)

(For those who don't get it: The Szekely 3-cylinder radial has an AD note
calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders. To
prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....)


One interesting motor I found is the Honda series of V-4 engines.
Though they have only one plug per cylinder, they have dual spark boxes.
Some riders I know have lost half their ignition system and had a hard
time telling something was wrong; they just seemed to be down a bit on
power, even though they were running on only two cylinders out of four.

My 1984 Nissan pickup has a straight four with two plugs per cylinder. As
I recall, it has two coils but fires all the plugs via one distributor.

Ron Wanttaja

I am not recomending this but my 95 ford ranger has a 4 cyl.eng. with
dual elect. ign. that is fully redundant in case smeone wants to copy
it.One coil fires one set of plugs and the other,the other.Jim

Ron

I flew the Szekely in a Rearwin Junior 3000 in the late 30's at Des
Moines, IA. Rearwin only built about 30 of the 3000/4000 (4000 used
the Aeromarine AR-3 engine) of the Jr. Szekely started ok. Ran with a
funny sound with the short stacks and three cylinders. Not a smooth
engine.

Did pull the stick out of the fitting as I flared for landing one
time. Of course in those days the birds kind of landed themselves and
it just flopped down and dribbled along and made a touch down about as
good as I was making with the stick in the fitting )

Big John

----clip----

Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice
reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekley. :-)

(For those who don't get it: The Szekley 3-cylinder radial has an AD
note
calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders. To
prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....)

----clip----

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:47:32 GMT, David Hill
wrote:

the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain
breaking.

Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice
reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekely. :-)

(For those who don't get it: The Szekely 3-cylinder radial has an
AD note
calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders.
To
prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....)


Now that's really funny, same as the Bleriot crossing of the English
Channel, by the time he got half way his boots were burning as there
was no fire wall, he has the full heat from the engine to contend
with.:-)
--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place





One interesting motor I found is the Honda series of V-4 engines.
Though they have only one plug per cylinder, they have dual spark
boxes.
Some riders I know have lost half their ignition system and had
a hard
time telling something was wrong; they just seemed to be down a
bit on
power, even though they were running on only two cylinders out of
four.

My 1984 Nissan pickup has a straight four with two plugs per
cylinder. As
I recall, it has two coils but fires all the plugs via one
distributor.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:47:32 GMT, David Hill
wrote:

The project I'm working on (1924 Epps Light Monoplane replica) motivated
me to learn about modern motorcycle engines. The original engine in the
original plane was an Indian Chief motorcycle engine.
snip
At some point before the plane was sold, it was converted to a Lawrance
A-3 engine. I've heard two stories about why he changed the engine.
One is that he wanted more power (28 hp for the Lawrance vs. 17 hp for
the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain breaking.

Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice
reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekely. :-)

(For those who don't get it: The Szekely 3-cylinder radial has an AD note
calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders. To
prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....)

The Lawrance engine wasn't much better than the Szekely; it actually was
not that much of an improvement over the bike engine. For those not
familiar with it, I think of it as a 2 cylinder radial. It had two
opposing pistons connecting to one crankshaft throw. And as far as I
have been able to determine, no counterweights. That's a lot of mass
being thrown back and forth in synchronization.

The fellow who bought the plane with the Lawrance engine installed
recalled (in 1985 or so) that the engine vibrated terribly. And in fact
the plane was demolished when the engine quit one day with Paul Rizzo
flying it.

The biggest surprise I got regarding the Lawrance engine, once I saw one
up close and in person, is no engine mounts! Just a groove around the
base of each cylinder to facilitate strapping it to the airplane!

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada

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