Corky's engine choice

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:56:07 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:20:09 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

Kevin, you have to read what Bruce said carefully. He said that the
**DURABILITY TESTS** "exceed, by about 400", anything required to
certify an aviation type engine." He did not say anything about
exceeding the 100% power tests for aircraft certification.

Looks like it's time for me to re-post that article from an automotive
engineer about the typical engine development durability tests. I'll
post it in a seperate article so as not to muck up this thread.

Corky Scott
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Post away. Repeat again and again,

Why thank you BOb, so kind of you to grant me this rare privelege. ;-)

but...
a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link --
certified or Rube Goldberged. Not to mention,
form follows function where max safety is concerned.
So, blithely and happily, convert away. One soul claims
2000 hours.Why not you, too? You only live once.
So, go for it. What have you got to lose?

I know that you are comfortable with your endeavor,
but you'll not ever get me to fly outside gliding distance
of the airport unless I incur an unbridled passion to not
be pigeon holed in an nursing home for seniors.
And... that could happen. ;o(


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight

My wife is determined to overcome her tendency towards motion sickness
to fly with me in the airplane. She wants to do this, she says, so
that when I fly into the side of a mountain, we'll both go together.
Then we won't be vegitating in a nursing home till we don't recognise
each other.

Corky Scott

On 24 Jul 2003 18:56:58 -0700, (Jay) wrote:

Hey Corky,

What was your beef with the 13B? I have to replace a car coming off
lease in the next few months and I'm seriously looking at older RX-7s
just to get a flavor for the power plant.

I like the idea of a no-seize failure mode and the idea of it being 2
co-axial engines in one. The higher fuel burn I can deal with,
especially since its mogas.

I initially liked the engine for all the reasons you and many others
liked it. But as I tore it apart and rebuilt it, I started to have
doubts. I didn't have doubts about the engine durability, the doubts
I had were about living with it when it was done.

I had the engine some 10 years ago and at that time, the only real
choice for a PSRU was Ross Aero. Lou Ross was a raconteur and loved
to go on about how people over engineer things and that keeping stuff
simple was the best way. During this time, there was another company
trying to use the Mazda engine and they were running into huge
problems with torsional vibration. They spent years engineering and
machining until they finally got something that would last longer than
a few minutes without braking the prop right off.

This was unnerving, although Lou said nothing of the sort was
happening with his gearbox.

So I sat down and wrote down all the pluses I could think of and all
the minuses. There were a lot more minuses than pluses.

On the debit side were the following:

1. I have to fabricate a new intake manifold.
2. The exhaust system runs some 400 to 500 degrees hotter than a four
stroke cycle engine.
3. Fuel milage appeared to be somewhat worse than a four stroke cycle
engine of similar power.
4. The recommendation was to remove the oil injector pump (this is the
pump that drips oil into the intake manifold to lubricate the rotor
tip seals) This meant that you had to carry oil you would be adding
to the fuel tanks. This also meant that you had to calculate how much
oil you had to add to the tanks every time you refueled.
5. The engine is unbelievably loud sounding like a cross between a two
stroke motorcycle dragster and chainsaw held next to your head. There
would definately be a need for a muffler.

On the plus side, it was an engine that was close to being
indestructable. Even if it blew a seal it would have run till you
landed. Would not have started again, but it would get you down.

I pictured myself having to refuel more frequently and having to add
oil to the tanks and decided that I really didn't want to do that.

In the end, I felt it was better to deal with the devil you knew than
the devil you didn't know.

Corky Scott

pragmatist wrote:

John Thompson wrote in message ...
Corky,
I think one of the biggest roadblocks in autoconversions is the lack of
"cookbooks". Instructions that cover things like that "stud stretching"
tip, why you might want to use this camshaft, or replace this part or
other, lifter bearing replacement, etc. and where to get them.

SNIP

John

Amen to that, but what scares me about auto conversions is the that
the design parameters for the auto engine are based on 25-30% constant
power at hiway cruise.
The reliability of the engine in automotive use is therefore not a
meaningful indication of fitness for flight.
Even with the engine blueprinted and a beefed up cooling system and
oil cooler added, when you run that engine at constant 75-80% power in
an aircraft you are likely to have 'hot spots` in there somewhere
which can play hell with reliability.
Do a lot of base testing Corky, and good luck to ya.

A lot of this seems to me to depend upon the question of: 75% of WHAT?

75% of the rated power of the 'truck' version of the engine will probably
be around 0.5 horsepower per cubic inch of piston displacement. That is
well within reason for a liquid cooled engine, and could give excellent
service life. However, a friend who is a mechanic (automotive) has
cautioned me that RPM is important! It seems that something near the
RPM at which maximum power is produced, again on the 'truck' version, is
probably acceptable; and in no case should the engine operate at high
sustained power levels below the RPM at which peak torque occurs.

I suspect, but don't know, that engines commonly used in stationary and
truck service probably have recommendations available regarding the
acceptable relationship of rotational speed and sustained power output;
and that where such manufacturer's recommendations are available, they
should be treated as gospel.

Although I can't give you any useful experience as of yet, a realistic
power expectation and operation in the correct speed range should give
you a "poor man's Merlin." :-)

Peter

Have not seen the paper but I run a ZZ3 in my 1967 Camaro, what a fantastic
engine it is. I have it built to develop 410hp.

Jerry

John M Frew wrote:
Has anyone seen the Sunset Engine Development automotive (ZZ3 V8) to aero
motive discussion paper written for the FEW P51 replica ?

"Ernest Christley" wrote in message
. com...

Corky Scott wrote:


On the debit side were the following:

1. I have to fabricate a new intake manifold.
2. The exhaust system runs some 400 to 500 degrees hotter than a four
stroke cycle engine.
3. Fuel milage appeared to be somewhat worse than a four stroke cycle
engine of similar power.
4. The recommendation was to remove the oil injector pump (this is the
pump that drips oil into the intake manifold to lubricate the rotor
tip seals) This meant that you had to carry oil you would be adding
to the fuel tanks. This also meant that you had to calculate how much
oil you had to add to the tanks every time you refueled.
5. The engine is unbelievably loud sounding like a cross between a two
stroke motorcycle dragster and chainsaw held next to your head. There
would definately be a need for a muffler.

This is not to contradict Corky, just to explain how these problems have
been dealt with.

1) Yep. Ya' gotta' do it.
2) Stainless or iconel.
3) This has not really been a factor. The rotary leans better than a
piston. Theory is that the fuel vapors, being heavier than the air, get
whipped around the outside of the housing and into the spark area. Not
an issure for me anyway, as I'll be carrying 42gal, and autogas is a LOT
cheaper.
4) Another solution has been to route the oil metering pump into a
second reservoir containing two-cycle oil. This is a concern, but the
mix ratio is 125 to 1. I'll just have an extra compartment to hold 1
gallon of 2cycle. That's 8lbs, 6 for oil and a couple for the container
and measuring cup.
5) The centrifugal mufflers have worked quite well in dampening the
noise. They can easily be made as quiete as a Lycoming at a cost of 10
to 20lbs. Total installation weight will still be right in line with an
IO-360.

My recommendation to anyone considering an auto-conversion is to
subscribe to different mailing list and see what is currently going on.
Yesterday's problems may have simple solutions, and yesterday's simple
solution may have problems. In the end, you only have your cards to
play with.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:34:41 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

So I finally decided that I had to turn back to the auto coversion
again. At this point, things began to go right. Bruce Frank pointed
out why the Ford V-6 makes sense: millions of them out there, hundreds
of PSRU's and a lot of running time with a good record and it's a
light weight engine.

I found an engine salvager who was willing to ship any number of Ford
V-6's to me for $150 each. At that price, I took two, thinking that
if I found a problem part, I could just yank it from the other engine.

Corky,

It's probably been asked and answered a million times, but why not the
4.3L Chevy or a Subaru? I won't dispute that the 3.8L Ford has been
used successfully and that head gasket problem has a fix but...

Other than Bruce, and I haven't seen his newsletter lately, there just
doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people using/supporting the Ford
3.8L today. Maybe I'm reading in the wrong places, but people are
very vocal/have websites about their use of the Mazda rotary and
sometimes Chevys, Subarus, etc. I don't think Northwest Aero (or
anyone else) even sells a complete Ford PSRU anymore. I'd just assume
be on a platform with lots of community support and ready made
parts/PSRUs.

__________________
Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
N38.6 W121.4

Has anyone seen the Sunset Engine Development automotive (ZZ3 V8) to aero
motive discussion paper written for the FEW P51 replica ?

"Ernest Christley" wrote in message
. com...
Corky Scott wrote:

On the debit side were the following:

1. I have to fabricate a new intake manifold.
2. The exhaust system runs some 400 to 500 degrees hotter than a four
stroke cycle engine.
3. Fuel milage appeared to be somewhat worse than a four stroke cycle
engine of similar power.
4. The recommendation was to remove the oil injector pump (this is the
pump that drips oil into the intake manifold to lubricate the rotor
tip seals) This meant that you had to carry oil you would be adding
to the fuel tanks. This also meant that you had to calculate how much
oil you had to add to the tanks every time you refueled.
5. The engine is unbelievably loud sounding like a cross between a two
stroke motorcycle dragster and chainsaw held next to your head. There
would definately be a need for a muffler.

This is not to contradict Corky, just to explain how these problems have
been dealt with.

1) Yep. Ya' gotta' do it.
2) Stainless or iconel.
3) This has not really been a factor. The rotary leans better than a
piston. Theory is that the fuel vapors, being heavier than the air, get
whipped around the outside of the housing and into the spark area. Not
an issure for me anyway, as I'll be carrying 42gal, and autogas is a LOT
cheaper.
4) Another solution has been to route the oil metering pump into a
second reservoir containing two-cycle oil. This is a concern, but the
mix ratio is 125 to 1. I'll just have an extra compartment to hold 1
gallon of 2cycle. That's 8lbs, 6 for oil and a couple for the container
and measuring cup.
5) The centrifugal mufflers have worked quite well in dampening the
noise. They can easily be made as quiete as a Lycoming at a cost of 10
to 20lbs. Total installation weight will still be right in line with an
IO-360.

My recommendation to anyone considering an auto-conversion is to
subscribe to different mailing list and see what is currently going on.
Yesterday's problems may have simple solutions, and yesterday's simple
solution may have problems. In the end, you only have your cards to
play with.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:59:51 -0700, Barry S.
wrote:

It's probably been asked and answered a million times, but why not the
4.3L Chevy or a Subaru? I won't dispute that the 3.8L Ford has been
used successfully and that head gasket problem has a fix but...

Other than Bruce, and I haven't seen his newsletter lately, there just
doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people using/supporting the Ford
3.8L today. Maybe I'm reading in the wrong places, but people are
very vocal/have websites about their use of the Mazda rotary and
sometimes Chevys, Subarus, etc. I don't think Northwest Aero (or
anyone else) even sells a complete Ford PSRU anymore. I'd just assume
be on a platform with lots of community support and ready made
parts/PSRUs.

__________________
Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
N38.6 W121.4

Actually, there are quite a few who have converted the engine and have
put impressive amounts of hours on them.

There were several reasons for using the 3.8L Ford rather than a Chevy
V-6.

1. Weight, the Ford 3.8L V-6 was one of the lightest engines of it's
type at the time.

2. Availability, there are millions of them, although you could say
the same for the Chevy.

3. Blanton designed his PSRU for the Ford and had made plans available
for it and there was a lot of information on it.

4. There was a newsletter on the Ford and pretty much everything that
could go wrong with it has been discovered and discussed.

5. It was really inexpensive.

Corky Scott

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:48:49 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
wrote:

Corky Scott wrote:

My wife is determined to overcome her tendency towards motion sickness
to fly with me in the airplane. She wants to do this, she says, so
that when I fly into the side of a mountain, we'll both go together.

Touching faith in your navigational abilities, that.

Cheers,
Sydney

It's her gallows humour. On the other hand, she selflessly gave of
herself when my two parents, who lived next door to us became infirm
and died. For two years she and I became nurses because my mother did
not want to be placed in a nursing home. It was a lot of work. It
was the death of my mother that allowed me to realise my dream of
finishing my flight lessons begun when I was 15.

Now her parents are in their middle 80's and her mother has advanced
Parkinson's. Her father has to deal with her every weekend so we go
down once a month to visit and give him a break. It's a lot like the
type of work it took to nurse my mother only my wife's mother is
heavier than my mother was because she doesn't have cancer.

My wife is not impressed with the aging process or the amount of
support available to the aged in the US. We would both rather not
have things get to the point where we were living vegetables.

So she's only half joking.

Corky Scott

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:15:40 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:59:51 -0700, Barry S.
wrote:

It's probably been asked and answered a million times, but why not the
4.3L Chevy or a Subaru? I won't dispute that the 3.8L Ford has been
used successfully and that head gasket problem has a fix but...

Other than Bruce, and I haven't seen his newsletter lately, there just
doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people using/supporting the Ford
3.8L today. Maybe I'm reading in the wrong places, but people are
very vocal/have websites about their use of the Mazda rotary and
sometimes Chevys, Subarus, etc. I don't think Northwest Aero (or
anyone else) even sells a complete Ford PSRU anymore. I'd just assume
be on a platform with lots of community support and ready made
parts/PSRUs.

__________________
Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
N38.6 W121.4

Actually, there are quite a few who have converted the engine and have
put impressive amounts of hours on them.

I've never had the opportunity to see a Ford conversion. Anyone out
towards Sacramento have one? (N38.6 W121.4)

3. Blanton designed his PSRU for the Ford and had made plans available
for it and there was a lot of information on it.

This forces you to build the PSRU or buy used. I think I'd prefer to
buy a PSRU new off the shelf which I believe makes the Ford less
desirable. Mr. Blanton is no longer with us and I'm not aware of a
"custodian" for the redrive design. So other than builders and the
newsletter, there is no manufacturer or designer formally supporting
the conversion. I'm not sure if this is a problem or not, but you
can never have too much support.

4. There was a newsletter on the Ford and pretty much everything that
could go wrong with it has been discovered and discussed.

I do get Bruce's newsletter.. (Haven't seen one in a while and I know
my subscription isn't up -- hint hint nudge nudge) but their just
seems to be more interest in other engine conversions. I still have
my EAA 52 badge, although not a member anymore, and I remember
chatting with several people about engines in the projects. One
Glastar builder investigated the Subaru and went with a Lycoming
instead. Another builder was looking at the Subaru, but wasn't sure
he wanted to make his build any more complicated. I can't recall
anyone wanting to use the Ford V6.

I look forward to seeing pictures of the finished product.

Best Wishes,
Barry

__________________
Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with 'mail'.
N38.6 W121.4

OK, guys, everyone has shamed me into it. I have been pretty busy with a new
job, BUT, I will endeavor to try to get the next issue out before the end of
August.

On additional subjects in this thread, right now there is no one of whom I
am aware that is manufacturing PSRUs for the Ford. Johnny at Northwest Aero
discontinued his, though he still makes them for other engines, because of
low demand. Johnny also used to build the engines, but again there was low
demand (probably because the Ford engine is the only conversion out there
that has info available allowing anyone to build his own). If one is
interested Johnny may be talked into building a PSRU on a one-off basis. If
you desire to build your own I can provide some helpful information.

One of the limiting things about the Ford has been the lack of performance
parts...not that we needed to build a racing engine, but we needed a source
for such things as roller rockers for those who wanted to get those last few
horses. The first place I have found that actually has stuff in stock and
ships it when you send money is Morana Racing
http://www.moranav6racing.com/

Besides the fancy electronic throttle body injection runner intakes they
have they are now working on the carb intake manifold and I hope to see
something useful in a few months.(Corky sent them one of his old intake
manifolds to study)

Bruce A. Frank


"Barry S." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:15:40 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:59:51 -0700, Barry S.
wrote:

It's probably been asked and answered a million times, but why not the
4.3L Chevy or a Subaru? I won't dispute that the 3.8L Ford has been
used successfully and that head gasket problem has a fix but...

Other than Bruce, and I haven't seen his newsletter lately, there just
doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people using/supporting the Ford
3.8L today. Maybe I'm reading in the wrong places, but people are
very vocal/have websites about their use of the Mazda rotary and
sometimes Chevys, Subarus, etc. I don't think Northwest Aero (or
anyone else) even sells a complete Ford PSRU anymore. I'd just assume
be on a platform with lots of community support and ready made
parts/PSRUs.

__________________
Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with
'mail'.
N38.6 W121.4

Actually, there are quite a few who have converted the engine and have
put impressive amounts of hours on them.

I've never had the opportunity to see a Ford conversion. Anyone out
towards Sacramento have one? (N38.6 W121.4)

3. Blanton designed his PSRU for the Ford and had made plans available
for it and there was a lot of information on it.

This forces you to build the PSRU or buy used. I think I'd prefer to
buy a PSRU new off the shelf which I believe makes the Ford less
desirable. Mr. Blanton is no longer with us and I'm not aware of a
"custodian" for the redrive design. So other than builders and the
newsletter, there is no manufacturer or designer formally supporting
the conversion. I'm not sure if this is a problem or not, but you
can never have too much support.

4. There was a newsletter on the Ford and pretty much everything that
could go wrong with it has been discovered and discussed.

I do get Bruce's newsletter.. (Haven't seen one in a while and I know
my subscription isn't up -- hint hint nudge nudge) but their just
seems to be more interest in other engine conversions. I still have
my EAA 52 badge, although not a member anymore, and I remember
chatting with several people about engines in the projects. One
Glastar builder investigated the Subaru and went with a Lycoming
instead. Another builder was looking at the Subaru, but wasn't sure
he wanted to make his build any more complicated. I can't recall
anyone wanting to use the Ford V6.

I look forward to seeing pictures of the finished product.

Best Wishes,
Barry

__________________
Note: To reply, replace the word 'spam' embedded in return address with
'mail'.
N38.6 W121.4