Hyabusa flat 8

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:10:10 +0100, Ace wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:32:24 -0600, "Maxwell" #$$9#@%%%.^^^ wrote:


"Ace" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:11:32 -0600, "Maxwell" #$$9#@%%%.^^^ wrote:

I drove a 6500
series Chevy dump truck years ago, always pulling a Case 580C back hoe.

But that's true of nearly all agricultural vehicles,

These were not ag vehicles.

*Whhhooooooosh*
How about a 292 six in a 3/4 ton pickup towing a 22 ton tri-axle?
Hauled farm tractors and equipment all over Ontario with that rig.
What did a Cockshutt 1950T weigh fully ,loaded? Or a White A4D?

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .

"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
...
The Older Gentleman wrote:
Brian Whatcott wrote:

Oh yes, they tend to run them on natural gas. That's quite a favorable
factor, apparently.

I have to ask: why?



I don't have the definitive answer - but here's my guess.
Those pump engines tend to be carbureted, and atomizing the gas at high
throttle would be an issue. Burning dirty is not good for engines.
(One reason why fuel injected engines with ECUs in cars tend to go 100K
easily these days)
Natural gas gets you 100% atomization out of the box.

Brian W

That is most likely the reason. We used to run a standby generator on
propane, and never saw any unburned carbon buildup in the oil. So I would
expect natural gas to be at least as good.


Exactly the reason, as well as the reason late model fuel injected engines
live so much longer.

In the 60s and 70s it was common place to overhaul auto engines with 60k to
80k miles that would always require boring and oversized pistons. Today it's
common place to overhaul engines with 150k miles that require nothing more
than deglaze honing and new rings.

Unburned liquid fuels on the top of the piston rings are constantly
competing with oil from the bottom. This keeps the rings operating in a
diluted mix. Natural gas, propane and now even fuel injection, eliminates or
greatly reduces the dilution, and pistons and cylinders usually last 2 to 3
times longer, and more. The best example is a piston type air compressor.
They often seem to last forever even in continuous use.

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .

"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
...
The Older Gentleman wrote:
Brian Whatcott wrote:

Oh yes, they tend to run them on natural gas. That's quite a favorable
factor, apparently.

I have to ask: why?



I don't have the definitive answer - but here's my guess.
Those pump engines tend to be carbureted, and atomizing the gas at high
throttle would be an issue. Burning dirty is not good for engines.
(One reason why fuel injected engines with ECUs in cars tend to go 100K
easily these days)
Natural gas gets you 100% atomization out of the box.

Brian W

That is most likely the reason. We used to run a standby generator on
propane, and never saw any unburned carbon buildup in the oil. So I would
expect natural gas to be at least as good.


Exactly the reason, as well as the reason late model fuel injected engines
live so much longer.

In the 60s and 70s it was common place to overhaul auto engines with 60k to
80k miles that would always require boring and oversized pistons. Today it's
common place to overhaul engines with 150k miles that require nothing more
than deglaze honing and new rings.

Unburned liquid fuels on the top of the piston rings are constantly
competing with oil from the bottom. This keeps the rings operating in a
diluted mix. Natural gas, propane and now even fuel injection, eliminates or
greatly reduces the dilution, and pistons and cylinders usually last 2 to 3
times longer, and more. The best example is a piston type air compressor.
They often seem to last forever even in continuous use.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:32:24 -0600, "Maxwell" #$$9#@%%%.^^^ wrote:

These were not ag vehicles. Passenger car engines were popular back then
in
all the class C motor homes, school buses, and light weight dump trucks.
My
Chevy was a 350-2v with probably nothing more than the heavy duty 4 bolt
main block.

The 2bbl 350 wasn't even a 4 bolt block. Only "select" 4 barrel
engines were 4 bolt.

That's why I said probably.

wrote

Chrysler put a LOT of 413 and 440 engines in medium duty trucks (like
dump trucks etc) over the years - and used the same engines in New
Yorkers and Imperials, as well as road runners etc (440).

Ford did the same with the 460. Standard engine in big Lincolns,
optional in pickups and LTDs, and very common in 3-10 ton trucks as
well.

The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired of
the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.

I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has had
the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.

And everyone else, no, I will not go into the reason for this attitude,
again.
--
Jim in NC

In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

wrote

Chrysler put a LOT of 413 and 440 engines in medium duty trucks (like
dump trucks etc) over the years - and used the same engines in New
Yorkers and Imperials, as well as road runners etc (440).

Ford did the same with the 460. Standard engine in big Lincolns,
optional in pickups and LTDs, and very common in 3-10 ton trucks as
well.

The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired of
the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.

I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has had
the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.

And everyone else, no, I will not go into the reason for this attitude,
again.

I don't think that there is a very large "anti-auto engine crowd." That
said, there are a lot of people, myself included, who view the auto
conversion field as a potential minefield.

I have known personally several people who used (or attempted to use)
auto conversions in airplanes.

One individual had a turbocharged Chevy/custom gearbox installation that
worked fairly well and put out gobs of power. Due to some bad decisions
in selecting suppliers who could not deliver a finished product on
schedule, he went broke. He also had one of the top auto racing gurus in
the country helping him.

Another group went broke trying to develop a big-block auto conversion
and ended up selling it to an engine company. They spent about 10 years
and bales of money.

Another built a neat-looking plane around a direct-drive Buick V-6. I
believe he ran out of money trying to sell the kit.

A personal friend installed a Subaru-based setup in a Glastar and had
two engine failures to/from Oshkosh. Only luck kept him out of a forced
landing in deep woods. I specifically recall telling him that I did not
think much of the engine package -- that it appeared that they had not
thought things out. He had planned to fly around the world in this setup.

There have been several other V-8 based direct drive instalaltions that,
frankly, were very rough-looking and ended up as catastrophic failures.

I have a friend who has a very nice Stuart 51, with a big-block Chevy
and PSRU. He is taking small steps to make sure that it all works as
desired.

That said, if you think you can negotiate the minefield of enging
development, have at it, but please, acquire all the technical hepl and
talent you can get.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

In uk.rec.motorcycles Morgans wrote:

The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired of
the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.

I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has had
the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.

There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.

--
03 GS500
66 Velocette LE Mk3
68 Bantam D14S
81 CB250RS

wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.motorcycles Morgans wrote:

The anti-auto (or truck) engine crowd will never admit that one of these
engines would work well, and be reliable in an airplane. I get so tired
of
the "they never run at full output in autos" way of thinking.

I still would rather get in an auto engine conversion airplane that has
had
the bugs worked out, than any airplane with a rotax engine of any size.

There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.

--
03 GS500
66 Velocette LE Mk3
68 Bantam D14S
81 CB250RS


The Continentals and Lycomings that I have seen have less thrust bearing
surface than I would have expected, and in applications that require a psru,
the prsu will be taking the thrust loads as well as the gyroscopic loads.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote

I don't think that there is a very large "anti-auto engine crowd." That
said, there are a lot of people, myself included, who view the auto
conversion field as a potential minefield.

I have known personally several people who used (or attempted to use)
auto conversions in airplanes.

Snip some examples

There have been several other V-8 based direct drive instalaltions that,
frankly, were very rough-looking and ended up as catastrophic failures.

I have a friend who has a very nice Stuart 51, with a big-block Chevy
and PSRU. He is taking small steps to make sure that it all works as
desired.

That said, if you think you can negotiate the minefield of enging
development, have at it, but please, acquire all the technical hepl and
talent you can get.

No doubt, that it can be, and usually has been a good way to go broke, if
you try to produce setups.

Anyone who thinks they will save gobs of money is fooling someone.

That said, there are ways to get the bugs out, and study of failures and
successes are a part of it.

Note that I said I would feel good about getting into a plane that had the
bugs worked out of the conversion, or something along that line. I guess
that line should have been emphasized, because that is the key.
--
Jim in NC

wrote

There is a fundamental problem, any auto engine is designed to deliver
purely rotational power from the crankshaft to the transmission.
In aero applications the prop is applying the entire power of the engine
trying to pull the crankshaft forward out of the block. That needs some
serious thrust bearings which auto engines simply do not have.
True, but I believe the conversation was about PSRU equipped engines, in
which side loads on the crankshaft and thrust loads will have been taken
care of by the PSRU. (or should have in well engineered PSRU's)

A well engineered PSRU is a beast that has been mastered, many times. It is
not a black art, until you get into long shafts, and strange things like
that.

The other thing that will bite an auto engine package is the other stuff on
the engine. Alternators, uninterruptible power if voltage is needed for
ignition and or fuel pump, cooling and anything else mounted on the engine
necessary to keep it running.
--
Jim in NC