![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 03:18:59 GMT, Peter Dohm
-KNOW wrote: At the moment, the Geshwender drive (which is back in production despite Mr G's death) looks like the most reliable scheme for much more than 100 horsepower, any may still be the best value in the long run. I agree, but add that this psru was originally designed for high output engines, engines that start with around 400 horsepower. For those interested, the reason Fred designed the psru in the first place was to provide a less expensive engine alternative for crop dusters. The engine he used was a Ford big block V8. I think that smaller psru's may be available now but I haven't checked for a while. When I called him to talk about his psru a year before he died, he talked me out of using it because it was overkill to use that psru on an engine putting out only 190 or so hp. Corky Scott |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Corky Scott wrote:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 03:18:59 GMT, Peter Dohm -KNOW wrote: At the moment, the Geshwender drive (which is back in production despite Mr G's death) looks like the most reliable scheme for much more than 100 horsepower, any may still be the best value in the long run. I agree, but add that this psru was originally designed for high output engines, engines that start with around 400 horsepower. For those interested, the reason Fred designed the psru in the first place was to provide a less expensive engine alternative for crop dusters. The engine he used was a Ford big block V8. I think that smaller psru's may be available now but I haven't checked for a while. When I called him to talk about his psru a year before he died, he talked me out of using it because it was overkill to use that psru on an engine putting out only 190 or so hp. Corky Scott I agree about it being overkill. An it is not cheap either. However, it looks like something you can trust. It's really an interesting dilemma that I will have to face when I get ready to build. If you don't require true short field capability, and only need a two seater; you can give up a little power and thrust, and build a v6 version of Steve Wittman's Tailwind installation. I admit that I am willing to give up a lot of "utility" for the few features that I think I need. I really don't consider landing speed very important, but want adequate cabin width at my own elbows and shoulders. The basic point is that I believe that I can power my first project with direct drive. Probably an engine in the 3.8 to 4.3 liter displacement range turning a 56 to 60 inch diameter prop and developing 130 to 150 horsepower. That should be enough for a cruising speed of about 130 kts tas. To be really blunt about it, I could probably design a better airplane with similar performance around a 110 hp corvair engine--if I knew of a source for *new* heads and crank cases. I also recognize that such an installation won't work on a Christavia MK4, which needs a longer prop. Therefore, you really don't have a choice. You are building the airplane that those 2400 to 2500 rpm engines were designed for! If you use an automotive conversion, you need a psru. Hypothetically, you could get about 170 hp from a 350 cid v8 turning a 72 inch prop at crankshaft rpm; but you would be lugging the engine, so the smaller engine with the psru would last longer and would still be at least 50 pounds lighter after allowing for the drive shaft and thrust bearing adapter on the v8. Peter |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:27:46 GMT, Peter Dohm
-KNOW wrote: I also recognize that such an installation won't work on a Christavia MK4, which needs a longer prop. Therefore, you really don't have a choice. You are building the airplane that those 2400 to 2500 rpm engines were designed for! If you use an automotive conversion, you need a psru. Hypothetically, you could get about 170 hp from a 350 cid v8 turning a 72 inch prop at crankshaft rpm; but you would be lugging the engine, so the smaller engine with the psru would last longer and would still be at least 50 pounds lighter after allowing for the drive shaft and thrust bearing adapter on the v8. Peter I'm building a Christavia Mk4 and have the Ford 3.8 installed in it right now. The psru I'll be using was one of the products put out by NW Aero before Johhny Lindgren acquired the business. Johhny made the psru for the Ford V6's available for a while but does not do so any longer because very few people seem interested in it. He does have psru's for Chevy V6's and V8's though and I bought all the things I need for my engine from him. Things like the camshaft, distributer, alternator and brackets, and the proper sized pulleys to drive everything. He can still get them. The original psru has undergone considerable modification and looks like a very nice unit. The top and outer drive cog bearings are now lubricated by an enclosed oil bath, rather than by grease that must be injected periodically by the owner. There was a failure written up by a guy who had a Chevy V-8 in his Lancair. The drive cog bearing seized and the belt broke. He landed short and the airplane flipped over when the wheels dug into the soft ground but the guy was ok. Saw some pictures of it in Contact! magazine. The drive cog bearing had overheated and seized and the guy admitted he did not really know how much to grease it, or how much to put in while greasing and apparently hadn't for a while. I'd call those bearings pretty critical parts and I'd want to have maintenance logs telling me exactly when they were last greased. The engine, by the way, continued to run fine and the owner was planning to get the updated psru, which he felt was a better design. The Chevy V6 is a pretty good engine and has a good track record when used in airplanes but it's considerably heavier than the Ford V6 because it has cast iron heads, intake manifold and timing chain cover. All the afore mentioned parts are aluminum in the Ford, which makes it the lightest V6 of that type of design in the US. You can buy all kinds of aluminum parts for it (the Chevy) to lighten it up, but the aluminum heads are competition models and the intake valves and air passages are designed for max power at high rpm and they don't adopt very well to moderate output levels. You can also buy aluminum intake manifolds for it and probably aluminum oil pans too. It's just that each purchase takes you beyond the cost of the original engine. I've said this before but if money were no object, or if I had no mechanical background, I would not be converting an auto engine. I'd just bite the bullet and spend the $10,000 to $15,000 it takes to get a reasonable, well maintained Lycoming or Continental. I still think it's incredible that engines can cost that much, but they do. Corky Scott |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Auto Alternator on an O-320-E2D | Ebby | Home Built | 8 | November 26th 03 02:46 PM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 1 | November 24th 03 02:46 PM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 2 | November 24th 03 05:23 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 24th 03 03:52 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart D. Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 22nd 03 06:24 AM |