If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Corvair conversion engines
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:17:48 -0600, "Montblack"
wrote: wrote) I bought two 3.8L Ford V6's for $150 each, bought new pistons from Roush racing, new rings, had the best block shot peened bored and honed, had the best crank turned and nitrided, bought new bearings, new cam, new distributer with two sensors installed for dual ignition, new pistons, new timing gears and chain, planed the heads, had four new intake valves installed and new guides installed as well, new valve springs, roller rockers, new lifters, new carburetor, old style NWAero psru, ARP studs for the crank bearings and cylinderheads, fabricated my own headers, and STILL spent only about $6,000. Why not fuel injected? Also, is that two for $3K each? What does that setup weigh? Was matching a prop to your engine a problem? 3 bladed prop? Curious... Montblack I didn't go fuel injected for two reasons, simplicity and safety. Carburetors don't need an electrical system to operate and are basically pretty simple. If you are a mechanic, carburators are easy to diagnose and repair. Fuel injection requires a relatively high pressure fuel pump and of course, the injectors. Both of which are likely electrically operated. The carburetor *may* use a fuel pump, but it's of the 5 - 7 psi variety, and with a high wing airplane, isn't absolutely necessary in order to get fuel to the carburetor. So if the fuel pump fails, you likely will still be running. Plus, my entire premise was to not reinvent the wheel. Using the auto fuel injection requires the use of the car's computer. Using the computer requires all the sensors and sometimes faking the sensors out so that they give the proper information. It all seemed too arcane and difficult for me. Carburation does not produce less power than fuel injection, but it might be slightly less efficient, depending on how the engine is leaned, and how much the pilot pays attention to it. I paid $150 for each engine, and built one engine, not two. The weight of the setup is one of those "not sure's". It likely weighed in excess of 400 lbs, but probably not by much. The block is cast steel, but it's a thinwall design. The heads are aluminum, as is the timing chain cover, and intake manifold. It was the lightest V-6 being built, and may still be in it's 4.2L form. I also used the lightweight geared starter, rather than the routine Ford beast. The NWAero psru is noted for it's relative light weight compared to the Blanton version, which was it's genesis. I also used a lightweight aluminum machined flywheel, rather than the suggested Ford flexplate. Probably no gain or loss there. As to the prop, I bought an IVO Magnum and ran it using that while I tested the engine. I added largish mufflers to the header system I fabricated (header length and diameter suggested by "Headers by Ed". Ed sizes header tubes scientifically to promote maximum flow at the power settings most often used and altitude at which I would normally be flying. That required relatively small diameter header pipes (1 3/8), which is considerably smaller than the exhaust ports in the heads (1 3/4). The length of the headers tubes was also specified to maximise torque, which meant that they had to be 40" long and feed into 3" diameter collector pipes, which had to be at least two feet long each. When I first fired the engine up, all animals in the vicinity headed for the hills. It seemed like I was standing next to two machine guns blasting away. Of course, I was inside the shop at the time (with the sliding door open). I had to add two hefty mufflers to the exhaust system in order to run it outside the house without being attacked by the neighbors, even though I live in rural Vermont, with lots of trees between me and my neighbors. They were big and unwieldy and I wasn't planning to use them in the airplane. But I was unhappy with how noisy the engine was and was concerned about being a good citizen when flying in the area. I tried several inserts to try to quiet the barking down some, but nothing but actual mufflers helped. With the mufflers, you basically only heard the soft clicking of the lifters and the hiss of the carburator, over the whopping of the prop. As I advanced the throttle, the carburetor began moaning/roaring and the noise of that big prop took over with a whapping blatting roar. I literally had to chain the test stand/engine down securely or it would have tipped over for sure. I had built a test stand that was basically a fully instrumented vehical on casters. It had a battery, radiator and fuel tank. I could have strapped it into a flatbed pontoon boat and gone air boating. I had the engine up to around 3,500 or so for the last run before I shut it down and sold it and the airplane. At that rpm, lots of air was being blown back and things like rakes and shovels were flying off the walls of the car port. The test stand was tied down to the car port posts, which is why the air was blowing into the bays. It was obvious I would have needed to back off on the prop pitch a bit to get more rpm out of the engine, if I had continued. Corky Scott |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Book Review: Converting Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft , Finch | Paul | Home Built | 0 | October 18th 04 10:14 PM |
P-3C Ditches with Four Engines Out, All Survive! | Scet | Military Aviation | 6 | September 27th 04 01:09 AM |
What if the germans... | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 119 | January 26th 04 11:20 PM |
Corvair Engine Conversion Breakin Success | Dick | Home Built | 1 | January 11th 04 02:06 PM |
Corvair Conversion | Gig Giacona | Home Built | 17 | October 27th 03 09:43 PM |