Scott & netters,
Good points well taken. However some are distortions, and some are responses
to my miscommunications, which I will clarify now.
First, most cars end up on the roadside not because of bad design or sudden
failure, but neglect by the operator of the "check engine" light or "service
engine soon" light. I have driven down the road and seen daily the
illumination of these advance warnings of parts showing problems, with the
operator continuing on as if nothing needs attending to. In 15 years of
drivability repair, I have lost count of how many customers came into the shop
telling me that weeks to months ago, the problem indicator lamp was lit, but
nothing appeared to be wrong so they kept driving. Only once it became a
problem did they attempt to have it fixed. Such things would not be allowed to
be ignored if used in an aircraft because the regs would render that aircraft
as un-airworthy. It would have to be fixed. Secondly, pilots would not fly
these aircraft with such warnings on without having them corrected, knowing the
potential consequences. Cars are not faced with such negative alternatives.
I agree Scott that in many cases the auto crankshaft was not designed for
such loads. The Corvair engine, and VW engine are two examples where there are
acceptable applications for their use with direct drive. This has been done
for almost as long if not longer than the stable of Lycs & Contis. Great
Plains, and several other companies encourage the use of PSRU units on most
every application of an auto engine, for the added insurance of reliability.
Belted Air Power has a very successful V6 & V8 PSRU for use with the Chevy 4.3,
& 5.7 engines, which completely remove the foreign loads from the crankshaft,
and maintain loads that were designed into such engines. Where people mess up
using these engines is inadequate cooling, and attempting to modify the
performance beyond reliable limits for cars, much less aircraft.
Conservatively built, as William Wynne teaches the building of the Corvair
engine, any auto engine can be matched to a PSRU, and turned at an appropriate
cruise rpm for good longevity and performance. Similar to the turbine powered
turboprop aircraft, but with better affordability. The Jet A burning aircraft
engines under evaluation here, and already certified in Europe, started life as
an AUTO diesel engine, and was successfully converted.
I agree with Scott that using the CTS or Northstar engine would be a
nightmare, unless you have a large aircraft, and larger budget! Their design
does not lend itself to easy maintenance and complex programming makes
practical upkeep nearly impossible. However, utilizing a simple electronic
ignition module distributor, which has a simple transistor trigger to replace
the points gains one a great deal of more consistent operation. I do not
encourage the use of multi-point fuel injection for the unknowing, simply
because it has alot of extras that need to be dealt with. If a second ignition
system is desired, one can drill out the heads as mine are on the VW, or adapt
a Nissan or Ford 8 plug head to their application, and have dual ignitions.
Redundancy is as easy as having a second dedicated battery to just the ignition
system. Spark advance and smoother running, more economical operation, and
better performance for the dollar are good enough reasons for me to stay with
auto engines. Just the purchase of one alternator/regulator combination for a
Lycoming, (which by the way is Motorcraft, same as what is on their trucks of
similar years, except for the yellow tag, & voltage settings) and I can buy
all the parts necessary to completely rebuild an auto engine.
Given apples to apples, if the same care and attention is given to the auto
conversion that certified engines receive, there will be no contest: the auto
engine will far outperform the aviation version. This is even supported by
such companies as Mattituck who openly reports manufacturing defects of design
to the original O-360, which they have designed out in their experimental
version of the O-360 kit engine. The only reason that Honda, Ford, Chrysler,
and GM left the aviation engine markets after once having been there is due to
the major hoops that must be jumped through for certification versus such a
thin market. In short, it was not profitable to stay, not that they could not
design good engines, or didn't have good engines.
I simply want all netters to see both sides and not have a narrowly
presented viewpoint concerning the use of auto engines in aircraft, but rather
see the true strong points and short comings that each has. My opinions.....
Colin & Bev Rainey
KR2(td) N96TA
Sanford, FL
crain...@cfl.rr.com
or crbrn9...@hotmail.com
http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html
