Colin, You saying that the I gave out misinformation is simply not true. I was speaking in general terms about general aviation. Including, but not limited to the KR or same class of aircraft. For instance, A Kr or similar aircraft that is limited to only light aerobatics, could care less about about out of plane thrust loads imposed by aerobatic manuvers.
Show me me one auto-conversion engine that is rated for aerobatics. They don't exist. Not the VW, Corvair, Subaru. Show me at Experimental aircraft, that is rated for Aerobatics, they all use certified aircraft engines. Why is that? Because a automobile conversion crankshaft cannot handle asymetrical dynamic thrust loading from the propeller. The crankshaft would break, and you'd pass up the fan on the way down. Show me one auto conversion that's rated for IFR. Again, there is none. I worked for several years for GM Powertrain. I have first hand knowledge and hands on, real life experience in Automotive engine design. I also have better than 15 years experience in aircraft design, including jet engine design. Would that electronically controlled engine work well in place of a certified aero-engine? Absolutely NOT. The engine program I worked certainly had impressive power, along with light weight. It was equipped with 6 bolt main bearing caps, dual overhead cams operating 4 valves per cylinder, direct fuel injection, and electonically controlled camshaft timing. Sounds like a pretty advanced design doesn't it? Although this 6 cylinder had all of these features, it would never work well in an aircraft. the 6 bolt main bearings support a cast crankshaft, with miniscule low drag bearings. Although the block was cast aluminum, it was water cooled. Would you fly behind an engine like this? It made 320 horsepower out of 3.2 Litres. Engine weight was around 290 lbs. It would never fly because it only is available as an optional power upgrade to the Cadillac CTS, and SAAB 9 Turbo. It would be way too expensive to purchase used, let alone convert for aero use. Would you fly behind a cast crankshaft? Would you rely solely on non-redundant flight essential systems? Why are these designs still being used since the 70's? Because they do their application specific job, simply, reduntantly where needed, and nobody has come up with a cost effective, weight effective flight safety designed alternative. I remember when everyone jumped on the Subaru Bandwagon, only to discover: The engine was heavy, had horrible reliablity, it was finickey, and some of the best minds in aviation couldn't match the reliability of an aero engine, or even get it to run past 200 hours. For my personnal application, I had planned on putting in a turbocharged Corvair for my KR-2S. By the time I bought Nickies, fabricated all of the necesisary exhaust and induction and ignition systems, oiling system and essentially everything under the cowling. I could have bought a brand new aero-engine. Some layperson would have inevitably asked: Why didn't you just buy an aircraft engine? So how many of these FADEC controlled engines are you going to buy Colin? None, because they haven't been certified yet. and you can't buy them yet. Where are you going to buy 10 Corvairs? So how long would you think it would take you to build 10 Corvairs? How many more "parts engines" would you have to buy to complete your 10 flight worthy corvairs? You'd spend the rest of your medical searching, cleaning, and fabricating parts. Inevitably some layperson would ask you: Why didn't you just buy a real airplane engine. Wasn't the Corvair Banned by Ralph Nader? 70's technology in the new Lycoming / Honda? 70's Technology in the New Franklin 220? 70's Technology in the Jabiru? Colin, ther's 70 year old technology and older in every single internal combustion engine ever built... You're making your argument based on the Corvair engine? It never saw production after 1970. Here's a challenge for you Colin: Show us how you're going to create electronic engine controls for your KR or other private general aviation aircraft, that's better than the 70's technology that are in flight rated hardware. I'm positive that would make some interesting conversation at the next gathering also. Colin & Bev Rainey <crain...@cfl.rr.com> wrote: Rather than get mad at the misinformation about engines and technology concerning them, which by the way Scott has been stated that way since the 70's and never updated, I will instead issue a friendly challenge. I will be willing to bet you that I will fly longer between services, smoother, with less maintenance, and 1/4 of the cost and better reliability than your certified engine. USING AN ENGINE THAT NEVER SAW 1970 FOR PRODUCTION... YOU WON'T DO AEROBATICS AND YOU WON'T DO IFR WITH THAT ENGINE EITHER....... The famous college that William Wynne himself attended Embry Riddle is proving the concept of both FADEC engine control, and LIQUID cooled diesel engines running on Jet A. They are smoother, more reliable, and eliminate the mixture control effectively removing the human error in proper leaning/mixture control. YEP AND THEY HAVE A CERTIFIED ENGINE TO PROVE IT WORKS TOO Any engine who poor fix of over heating and detonation is the over richening of the air fuel mixture to provide additional cooling is to me poorly designed, and receiving the cheapest fix for the problem. SO YOU HAVE A LIGHTER, MORE EFFECTIVE MEANS OF DOING THIS? The cylinders are not built with tight tolerances, but rather have to provide for massive amounts of expansion due to dramatic changes in clearances due to swelling caused by heat expansion. DO I EVEN NEED TO GO THERE, OK... OPEN UP A LYCOMING SPECIFICATION, FOR SHALL WE SAY, A 100 HP ENGINE. COMPARE THE TOLERANCES TO A LIKE POWERED AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE... EVER BEEN ON AN AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE ASSEMBLY LINE TOUR? IF YOU EVER HAVE THEN YOU'LL KNOW WHY THERE ARE SO MANY NEW CARS SITTING ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. Take any late model engine apart and you will see engine honing marks still in the cylinder walls showing negligible wear after over 100,000 miles of use. SHOW ME ONE AUTO-CONVERSION THAT CAN RUN FOR 1650 HOURS 100,000 MILES IS 33 OIL CHANGES. 33 AIRCRAFT OIL CHANGES @ 50 FLIGHT HOURS IS 1650 FLIGHT HOURS. SHOW ME ONE SUBARU THAT WILL GO PAST HALF OF THAT. Most Lycs wont even make it to TBO no matter how they are taken care of. But even if you are right on ALL counts Scott, and other netters listen up: if I bought just 1 Lycoming new, I could outfit 10 engines like Mark's Corvair for the same money, fly each 500 hours and never use all ten before I passed away, effectively never having a catastrophic failure. You all decide for yourself. Scott, lets see who comes out on top, friendly challenge to benefit all and make for an interesting conversation at the Gathering! You up for it? :o) SURE COLIN, NEED I MENTION SEAT BELT ATTACHMENTS? ;O) Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crain...@cfl.rr.com or crbrn9...@hotmail.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html_______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html Scott Cable KR-2S # 735 Wright City, MO s2cab...@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
