KR> Geared vs direct drive
Netters This debate about best engines for experimentals, and whether to turbo, whether to Gear drive/PSRU or direct drive has been going on for a while now, and I suspect will probably continue, kind like the Ford/Chevy debate (Chevy is best, LOL ). I am NOT going to take sides of whether a builder should choose auto or aircraft engine, normally aspirated or turbo, or direct drive or PSRU. All these things are in the archives, and found in literal volumes in other writings, both Internet and books like, "Auto Engines for Experimental Airplanes" by Robert Finch, just to sight one example. There are many others. What all Netters, especially you new members need to take to heart is that engine selection is VERY important. Looking at certified aircraft, you will see that it it the single most important factor when considering an aircraft's present value, how many hours on the engine. Of all the expense of owning an aircraft, once it is completed, the most money you will spend will be for the engine, and its up keep/maintenance. Turbo charging is the cats meow for cheap horsepower, but just ask Orma Robbins about how this "enhancement" comes with its own unique set of problems to deal with and overcome. Also, the article sighted states that turbo charging generally adds at least 50% more power. This is out right fiction! The best that I have seen proven by dyno runs is approximately 40%, and this is with associated engine modifications, AND the use of an inter cooler, which is not mentioned in the article at all. B&M, Vortech, Banks Turbo-charging, and Paxton all report similar values for their "bolt-on" systems. I am not saying that a turbo or supercharger cannot add 50% or more power, but that rather that bolt on systems do not give that kind of increase, and do not want builders running out and buying a turbo for their engine expecting to get a 50% increase in power and torque by just hacking the exhaust in order to add the turbo. The same rules hold true for direct drive vs PSRU. There are definite benefits to a PSRU, but to set one up on a 2.2 to 1 reduction, just to achieve maximum horsepower from an engine from a dyno run, and say that is best does not take into account all phases of flight for the engine, only take off. That is the only time you will use max power. This amount of reduction although it makes the max power available according to the dyno, it does not allow for a reasonable rpm for cruise. This is because the prop will be slowed to 2000 to 2100 rpm, which begins putting it below its cruise efficiency speed. Just compare certified props that are made to run in this range of rpms. They produce max thrust at near redline, and produce best cruise thrust at 75 to 80% engine power. This puts the prop at around 2300 to 2400 rpms on a 2750 redline. This puts the engine in the re drive at 5060 rpms for the 2300, and 5280 rpms for the 2400 rpms at the prop. Now your engine is running just like the Rotax family of engines and can expect the same life, or simply 50 to 100 hour maintenance intervals with a major a max of 500 hours out. It also makes the combination "peaky", where basically you spend literally all your time at or near peak rpm. Robert Finch's book details a lot of engines that have been successfully used in direct drive configuration; the Buick V8, the VW family, the Corvairs, and several others mentioned in his book. In larger aircraft that have more generous weight allowances for the engine, the more complicated and heavier engines have a good appeal. BUT for our applications, in order to stay in the RECOMMENDED weight range of engines AND their output, direct drive offers the best answers, and air cooled the simplest installation. Above all, it takes research and study to decide and engine install, and talking to other actual pilots of those engines. Don't get sucked into the trap of some fancy numbers calculations and good advertising on one web page where one engine is presented as the experimental airplanes dream engine. There are a lot of "assumptions" and over generalizations made at the expense of the builder. No quick answers here. It takes years to build a KR, take enough time to study your engine completely BEFORE spending any money. Colin Rainey brokerpilot9...@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You.
KR> Geared vs direct drive
Not to mention the fact that Colin isn't trying to sell you anythingmakes a big difference in the information stream. Scott --- Colin Rainey wrote: > Netters > This debate about best engines for experimentals, > and whether to turbo, whether to Gear drive/PSRU or > direct drive has been going on for a while now, and > I suspect will probably continue, kind like the > Ford/Chevy debate (Chevy is best, LOL ). I am NOT > going to take sides of whether a builder should > choose auto or aircraft engine, normally aspirated > or turbo, or direct drive or PSRU. All these things > are in the archives, and found in literal volumes in > other writings, both Internet and books like, "Auto > Engines for Experimental Airplanes" by Robert Finch, > just to sight one example. There are many others. > > What all Netters, especially you new members need to > take to heart is that engine selection is VERY > important. Looking at certified aircraft, you will > see that it it the single most important factor when > considering an aircraft's present value, how many > hours on the engine. Of all the expense of owning > an aircraft, once it is completed, the most money > you will spend will be for the engine, and its up > keep/maintenance. Turbo charging is the cats meow > for cheap horsepower, but just ask Orma Robbins > about how this "enhancement" comes with its own > unique set of problems to deal with and overcome. > Also, the article sighted states that turbo charging > generally adds at least 50% more power. This is out > right fiction! The best that I have seen proven by > dyno runs is approximately 40%, and this is with > associated engine modifications, AND the use of an > inter cooler, which is not mentioned in the article > at all. B&M, Vortech, Banks Turbo-charging, and > Paxton all report similar values for their "bolt-on" > systems. I am not saying that a turbo or > supercharger cannot add 50% or more power, but that > rather that bolt on systems do not give that kind of > increase, and do not want builders running out and > buying a turbo for their engine expecting to get a > 50% increase in power and torque by just hacking the > exhaust in order to add the turbo. > > The same rules hold true for direct drive vs PSRU. > There are definite benefits to a PSRU, but to set > one up on a 2.2 to 1 reduction, just to achieve > maximum horsepower from an engine from a dyno run, > and say that is best does not take into account all > phases of flight for the engine, only take off. That > is the only time you will use max power. This > amount of reduction although it makes the max power > available according to the dyno, it does not allow > for a reasonable rpm for cruise. This is because > the prop will be slowed to 2000 to 2100 rpm, which > begins putting it below its cruise efficiency speed. > Just compare certified props that are made to run > in this range of rpms. They produce max thrust at > near redline, and produce best cruise thrust at 75 > to 80% engine power. This puts the prop at around > 2300 to 2400 rpms on a 2750 redline. This puts the > engine in the re drive at 5060 rpms for the 2300, > and 5280 rpms for the 2400 rpms at the prop. Now > your engine is running just like the Rotax family of > engines and can expect the same life, or simply 50 > to 100 hour maintenance intervals with a major a max > of 500 hours out. It also makes the combination > "peaky", where basically you spend literally all > your time at or near peak rpm. > > Robert Finch's book details a lot of engines that > have been successfully used in direct drive > configuration; the Buick V8, the VW family, the > Corvairs, and several others mentioned in his book. > In larger aircraft that have more generous weight > allowances for the engine, the more complicated and > heavier engines have a good appeal. BUT for our > applications, in order to stay in the RECOMMENDED > weight range of engines AND their output, direct > drive offers the best answers, and air cooled the > simplest installation. Above all, it takes research > and study to decide and engine install, and talking > to other actual pilots of those engines. Don't get > sucked into the trap of some fancy numbers > calculations and good advertising on one web page > where one engine is presented as the experimental > airplanes dream engine. There are a lot of > "assumptions" and over generalizations made at the > expense of the builder. No quick answers here. It > takes years to build a KR, take enough time to study > your engine completely BEFORE spending any money. > > > Colin Rainey > brokerpilot9...@earthlink.net > EarthLink Revolves Around You. > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at > http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to > krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at > http://www.krnet.org/info.html > __ Yah
KR> Geared vs direct drive
Fantastic post! All very good information. Turbos can be wonderful, and they can destroy an engine that is not properly set up for one. Be careful of any "bolt on" as the engine was probably not originally designed to handle the extra pressures and temperatures. I was lucky enough to get to discuss my installation with Turbo Tom before he passed and he really opened my eyes. If you are unfamiliar with them get some advice from someone who knows them. They really can make a difference. My opinion. Stephen -Original Message- From: krnet-bounces+steate=compositecooling@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-bounces+steate=compositecooling@mylist.net] On Behalf Of Colin Rainey Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 11:52 AM To: kr...@mylist.net Subject: KR> Geared vs direct drive Netters This debate about best engines for experimentals, and whether to turbo, whether to Gear drive/PSRU or direct drive has been going on for a while now, and I suspect will probably continue, kind like the Ford/Chevy debate (Chevy is best, LOL ). I am NOT going to take sides of whether a builder should choose auto or aircraft engine, normally aspirated or turbo, or direct drive or PSRU. All these things are in the archives, and found in literal volumes in other writings, both Internet and books like, "Auto Engines for Experimental Airplanes" by Robert Finch, just to sight one example. There are many others. What all Netters, especially you new members need to take to heart is that engine selection is VERY important. Looking at certified aircraft, you will see that it it the single most important factor when considering an aircraft's present value, how many hours on the engine. Of all the expense of owning an aircraft, once it is completed, the most money you will spend will be for the engine, and its up keep/maintenance. Turbo charging is the cats meow for cheap horsepower, but just ask Orma Robbins about how this "enhancement" comes with its own unique set of problems to deal with and overcome. Also, the article sighted states that turbo charging generally adds at least 50% more power. This is out right fiction! The best that I have seen proven by dyno runs is approximately 40%, and this is with associated engine modifications, AND the use of an inter cooler, which is not mentioned in the article at all. B&M, Vortech, Banks Turbo-charging, and Paxton all report similar values for their "bolt-on" systems. I am not saying that a turbo or supercharger cannot add 50% or more power, but that rather that bolt on systems do not give that kind of increase, and do not want builders running out and buying a turbo for their engine expecting to get a 50% increase in power and torque by just hacking the exhaust in order to add the turbo. The same rules hold true for direct drive vs PSRU. There are definite benefits to a PSRU, but to set one up on a 2.2 to 1 reduction, just to achieve maximum horsepower from an engine from a dyno run, and say that is best does not take into account all phases of flight for the engine, only take off. That is the only time you will use max power. This amount of reduction although it makes the max power available according to the dyno, it does not allow for a reasonable rpm for cruise. This is because the prop will be slowed to 2000 to 2100 rpm, which begins putting it below its cruise efficiency speed. Just compare certified props that are made to run in this range of rpms. They produce max thrust at near redline, and produce best cruise thrust at 75 to 80% engine power. This puts the prop at around 2300 to 2400 rpms on a 2750 redline. This puts the engine in the re drive at 5060 rpms for the 2300, and 5280 rpms for the 2400 rpms at the prop. Now your engine is running just like the Rotax family of engines and can expect the same life, or simply 50 to 100 hour maintenance intervals with a major a max of 500 hours out. It also makes the combination "peaky", where basically you spend literally all your time at or near peak rpm. Robert Finch's book details a lot of engines that have been successfully used in direct drive configuration; the Buick V8, the VW family, the Corvairs, and several others mentioned in his book. In larger aircraft that have more generous weight allowances for the engine, the more complicated and heavier engines have a good appeal. BUT for our applications, in order to stay in the RECOMMENDED weight range of engines AND their output, direct drive offers the best answers, and air cooled the simplest installation. Above all, it takes research and study to decide and engine install, and talking to other actual pilots of those engines. Don't get sucked into the trap of some fancy numbers calculations and good advertising on one web page where one engine is presented as the experimental airplanes dream engine. There are a lot of "assumptions" and over generalizations made at the expense of th
KR> Geared vs direct drive
Well, since you bring up the subject, I'll say a little. My daily driver is now an 87 Mustang LX with a 88 Turbo coupe engine. Depending on who's manual you read, the original 2300cc (Pinto) engine was rated at 88 hp and the Turbo Coupe rated at 145 or 180. I have taken an earlier Turbo Coupe turbo and installed it in my 2366 Type 4 VW. As Colin indicates, I could not just bolt on and run and expect to go from what ever my VW hp was to a level somewhere near the TC (Turbo Coupe) published rated hp. My original goal was to increase my power enough to be able to have a suffiently good climb rate to be able to carry a passenger. I felt that if I could obtain 100 hp from the 70 or so in the Type 4, that the power would be there. I think I have exceeded that. And yes there are problems. So far they involve sealing the head to prevent gas leakage. Finding the correct prop to absorb the power. My current prop is a Sterba 54X52 cut down to 52X52 full blade. I am no where near ready give up on the turbo. All in all the turbo adds complexity to the whole firewall fwd. I would consider a larger engine if just building,If you already too heavy and trying to decide direct drive vs. gear drive. I would go certified if I had it to do over and the money was available. If you are building with a goal of flying at a low cost, I would ensure that my empty was 450 and put on one of Steve's 1835's and go flying. Orma Southfield, MI KR-2 N110LR 1984 See Tweety at http://www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com See other KR spces at www.kr-2.aviation-mechanics.com/krinfo.htm
KR> Geared vs direct drive
Hello, Colin, I always enjoy you comments on subjects, I am an observer to the KRnet , I bought a KR2 Boat with retractable gear and tail dragger, I have no experience of building A/C but opinion of experienced folks count, Now let ask you , I have the wing center Old aerfoil RAF48, Do you think the new aerofoil is woth it at this stage of the built, and changing to fixed gear better than the retract fo KR2, when the new aerfoil instaaled do you think that the elevator and the rudder will be resized. would like to know your opinion, Best regards Nagy Jacksinville, Florida 904-543-8183 Colin Rainey wrote: Netters This debate about best engines for experimentals, and whether to turbo, whether to Gear drive/PSRU or direct drive has been going on for a while now, and I suspect will probably continue, kind like the Ford/Chevy debate (Chevy is best, LOL ). I am NOT going to take sides of whether a builder should choose auto or aircraft engine, normally aspirated or turbo, or direct drive or PSRU. All these things are in the archives, and found in literal volumes in other writings, both Internet and books like, "Auto Engines for Experimental Airplanes" by Robert Finch, just to sight one example. There are many others. What all Netters, especially you new members need to take to heart is that engine selection is VERY important. Looking at certified aircraft, you will see that it it the single most important factor when considering an aircraft's present value, how many hours on the engine. Of all the expense of owning an aircraft, once it is completed, the most money you will spend will be for the engine, and its up keep/maintenance. Turbo charging is the cats meow for cheap horsepower, but just ask Orma Robbins about how this "enhancement" comes with its own unique set of problems to deal with and overcome. Also, the article sighted states that turbo charging generally adds at least 50% more power. This is out right fiction! The best that I have seen proven by dyno runs is approximately 40%, and this is with associated engine modifications, AND the use of an inter cooler, which is not mentioned in the article at all. B&M, Vortech, Banks Turbo-charging, and Paxton all report similar values for their "bolt-on" systems. I am not saying that a turbo or supercharger cannot add 50% or more power, but that rather that bolt on systems do not give that kind of increase, and do not want builders running out and buying a turbo for their engine expecting to get a 50% increase in power and torque by just hacking the exhaust in order to add the turbo. The same rules hold true for direct drive vs PSRU. There are definite benefits to a PSRU, but to set one up on a 2.2 to 1 reduction, just to achieve maximum horsepower from an engine from a dyno run, and say that is best does not take into account all phases of flight for the engine, only take off. That is the only time you will use max power. This amount of reduction although it makes the max power available according to the dyno, it does not allow for a reasonable rpm for cruise. This is because the prop will be slowed to 2000 to 2100 rpm, which begins putting it below its cruise efficiency speed. Just compare certified props that are made to run in this range of rpms. They produce max thrust at near redline, and produce best cruise thrust at 75 to 80% engine power. This puts the prop at around 2300 to 2400 rpms on a 2750 redline. This puts the engine in the re drive at 5060 rpms for the 2300, and 5280 rpms for the 2400 rpms at the prop. Now your engine is running just like the Rotax family of engines and can expect the same life, or simply 50 to 100 hour maintenance intervals with a major a max of 500 hours out. It also makes the combination "peaky", where basically you spend literally all your time at or near peak rpm. Robert Finch's book details a lot of engines that have been successfully used in direct drive configuration; the Buick V8, the VW family, the Corvairs, and several others mentioned in his book. In larger aircraft that have more generous weight allowances for the engine, the more complicated and heavier engines have a good appeal. BUT for our applications, in order to stay in the RECOMMENDED weight range of engines AND their output, direct drive offers the best answers, and air cooled the simplest installation. Above all, it takes research and study to decide and engine install, and talking to other actual pilots of those engines. Don't get sucked into the trap of some fancy numbers calculations and good advertising on one web page where one engine is presented as the experimental airplanes dream engine. There are a lot of "assumptions" and over generalizations made at the expense of the builder. No quick answers here. It takes years to build a KR, take enough time to study your engine completely BEFORE spending any
KR> Geared vs direct drive Turbo & my 2 cents
I love this subject and have contemplated turbo charging my 2180 for quite some time. I feel I have extensive knowledge of turbo charging systems as I have done extensive amounts of turbo and turbo engine work on automobile applications. However, and not to slight anyone here, I don't think I would ever consider taking a turbo from one application and believe I could bolt it to my VW 2180 or a Corvair engine and expect success. I cut my teeth in turbo experimenting with automobiles. I will also credit much of the knowledge I gained came from many individuals involved in the Shelby Dodge Auto Clubs. Here is what I learned. Or, I could just cut to the finish and suggest that if you want to turbo your airplane, start with a proven turbo and engine application and then make minor modifications as you need. But back to what I learned. With a turbo several things are critical to it's success. I would say that the most important is proper air fuel ratio delivery and the ability to monitor that. In an aircraft , this would be highly critical. I think more engines blow up ( turbo or normally aspirated) because they get to a lean mixture condition. Adding a turbo makes this even more of an issue. For that matter, anything that increases horsepower makes fuel delivery very important. So, fuel injection would be my choice over a carb on this subject. I would also install an air fuel meter. You would also need to deal with the great deal of increased heat that a turbo creates. Both to your oil and probably even your air fuel mixture. Cooling the air fuel mixture can be done with and intercooler. The increase in oil temps would be a challenge to your oil cooler and oil delivery system. You may also need to deal with the fact that when you shut off the engine, all that hot oil from your turbo will drain down to your engine , thus increasing oil temps after shut down. The most reliable automotive turbo's use both oil and engine coolant to keep the turbo cool. You also need a reliable way to regulate the waste gate. Or in other words you have to be able to keep the turbo from overboosting. Again, I believe you need to monitor this with a guage. If not you will never be able to keep head gaskets on your engine. You would also burn holes in the tops of your pistons, burn valves and so on and so on. Speaking of valves, my experience leads me to believe that you would need to change the exhaust valves on your engine as well , in order to deal with the increased temps of combustion. This goes back to the idea of starting with a reliable engine turbo combination. I could go on and on with the subject of turbo charging. I would also say that I think it is the cheapest and best way to get more ponies and torque out of an engine. I also would guess that there are people on this list that know 10 times more then me on turbo charging. But I qualify my information with the years I spent experimenting with turbo in automobiles and that I was able to take a 2.2 four cylinder engine of 140 horsepower and develop a reliable dyno tested 360 HP with incredible amounts of torque. But, I did this using a tried and tested engine and turbo combination. I was able to take advantage of computerized controls for fuel delivery and waste gate controls. I was able to write my own computerized fuel tables and timing curves to assure air fuel mixture at various RPM ranges. This was all done via Engine ECU and interfacing a laptop computer. And the whole system seems a little complex for a KR2. I also need to mention that I struggled with all the items mentioned above. No big deal when on the ground ( ok maybe a few towing bills and head gaskets and parts and such) but I sure wouldn't want to have those issues in the air. I would still like to turbo an engine for my KR2. I am still unsure of the best, lightest and most reliable way to do it. Maybe I will start with some Rev Master turbo parts and go from there. Jeff York KR-2 Flying N839BG Home page http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/ My KR-2 http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/Airplane/ to see my KR-2 Email jeffyor...@qx.net - Original Message - From: "hussein nagy" To: ; "KRnet" Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 7:40 PM Subject: Re: KR> Geared vs direct drive > Hello, Colin, > I always enjoy you comments on subjects, I am an observer to the KRnet , I bought a KR2 Boat with retractable gear and tail dragger, I have no experience of building A/C but opinion of experienced folks count, Now let ask you , I have the wing center Old aerfoil RAF48, Do you think the new aerofoil is woth it at this stage of the built, and changing to fixed gear better than the retract fo KR2, when the new aerfoil instaaled do you think that the elevator and the rudder will be resized. would like to know your opinion, > Best regards > Nagy > Jacksinville, Florida > 904-543-8183 > > Colin Rainey wrote: Netters
KR> Geared vs direct drive Turbo & my 2 cents
hi jeff did you upgrade from a 1835 by any chance just wondered how much extra power you gained p - Original Message - From: To: "KRnet" Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:35 PM Subject: Re: KR> Geared vs direct drive Turbo & my 2 cents > I love this subject and have contemplated turbo charging my 2180 for quite > some time. I feel I have extensive knowledge of turbo charging systems as I > have done extensive amounts of turbo and turbo engine work on automobile > applications. > > However, and not to slight anyone here, I don't think I would ever consider > taking a turbo from one application and believe I could bolt it to my VW > 2180 or a Corvair engine and expect success. > > I cut my teeth in turbo experimenting with automobiles. I will also credit > much of the knowledge I gained came from many individuals involved in the > Shelby Dodge Auto Clubs. Here is what I learned. Or, I could just cut to the > finish and suggest that if you want to turbo your airplane, start with a > proven turbo and engine application and then make minor modifications as you > need. But back to what I learned. > > With a turbo several things are critical to it's success. > I would say that the most important is proper air fuel ratio delivery and > the ability to monitor that. In an aircraft , this would be highly critical. > I think more engines blow up ( turbo or normally aspirated) because they get > to a lean mixture condition. Adding a turbo makes this even more of an > issue. For that matter, anything that increases horsepower makes fuel > delivery very important. So, fuel injection would be my choice over a carb > on this subject. I would also install an air fuel meter. > > You would also need to deal with the great deal of increased heat that a > turbo creates. Both to your oil and probably even your air fuel mixture. > Cooling the air fuel mixture can be done with and intercooler. The increase > in oil temps would be a challenge to your oil cooler and oil delivery > system. You may also need to deal with the fact that when you shut off the > engine, all that hot oil from your turbo will drain down to your engine , > thus increasing oil temps after shut down. The most reliable automotive > turbo's use both oil and engine coolant to keep the turbo cool. > > You also need a reliable way to regulate the waste gate. Or in other words > you have to be able to keep the turbo from overboosting. Again, I believe > you need to monitor this with a guage. If not you will never be able to keep > head gaskets on your engine. You would also burn holes in the tops of your > pistons, burn valves and so on and so on. Speaking of valves, my experience > leads me to believe that you would need to change the exhaust valves on your > engine as well , in order to deal with the increased temps of combustion. > This goes back to the idea of starting with a reliable engine turbo > combination. > > I could go on and on with the subject of turbo charging. I would also say > that I think it is the cheapest and best way to get more ponies and torque > out of an engine. I also would guess that there are people on this list that > know 10 times more then me on turbo charging. But I qualify my information > with the years I spent experimenting with turbo in automobiles and that I > was able to take a 2.2 four cylinder engine of 140 horsepower and develop a > reliable dyno tested 360 HP with incredible amounts of torque. But, I did > this using a tried and tested engine and turbo combination. I was able to > take advantage of computerized controls for fuel delivery and waste gate > controls. I was able to write my own computerized fuel tables and timing > curves to assure air fuel mixture at various RPM ranges. This was all done > via Engine ECU and interfacing a laptop computer. And the whole system seems > a little complex for a KR2. I also need to mention that I struggled with all > the items mentioned above. No big deal when on the ground ( ok maybe a few > towing bills and head gaskets and parts and such) but I sure wouldn't want > to have those issues in the air. > > I would still like to turbo an engine for my KR2. I am still unsure of the > best, lightest and most reliable way to do it. Maybe I will start with some > Rev Master turbo parts and go from there. > > Jeff York > KR-2 Flying > N839BG > Home page http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/ > My KR-2 http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/Airplane/ to see my KR-2 > Email jeffyor...@qx.net > > - Original Message - > From: "hussein nagy" > To: ; "KRnet" > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 7:40 PM > Subject: Re: KR> Geared vs direct drive > > > > Hello, Colin, >
KR> Geared vs direct drive Turbo & my 2 cents
Never had a 1835 so I can not make the comparison. I am going to open a can of worms with this statement, but here goes. I will start out by saying that I am completely intrigued with the Corvair power. I love Corvairs anyway but what the WW group has done is awesome. Sure wish I could have gotten a ride in one at the gathering. But aside from that my mind keeps going back to the extensive experience the VW conversion has in aircraft and the fact that I already have one. Here comes the trouble I am going to get myself into. With the VW I just feel that there is a lot more reliable power that should be available. I make that statement partly because of all the auto racing ( I know auto racing is not flying) experience the VW conversions have. There are companies like SCAT and others that are able to get lots more out of these engines (VW) and the availability of parts are so extensive for the VW engines that there should be a little more that can be gained by this experience. I know there are big differences in engine RPM's configurations and so on between the SCAT conversions and the VW engines we use,. But I believe that there is also a lot that can be applied to the VW engines from these types of VW engine conversions. Take for example the fact that my last several certified engines ( Cont and LYC) all used very tried and true , but very old technologies in fuel systems and so on. FADAC and several new to aircraft technologies are now being implemented. These seem very similar to systems that have been in automotive use for many years. To me the AERO VEE engine looks a little like the marriage of newer technologies to the older VW engine platform. Ok, I am kinda drifting off here but I am curious as to if a marriage of some of the older tried and true VW can be joined to the newer SCAT and AERO VEE to produce a reliable more powerful engine along the lines of the WW Corvair stuff. Thus giving greater performance with greater parts availability. Now, can I still throw in there that I think what Steve and Linda Bennet have done for the VW engine is absolutely awesome Jeff York KR-2 Flying N839BG Home page http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/ My KR-2 http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/Airplane/ to see my KR-2 Email jeffyor...@qx.net - Original Message - From: "phil brookman" To: "KRnet" Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 6:07 PM Subject: Re: KR> Geared vs direct drive Turbo & my 2 cents > hi jeff did you upgrade from a 1835 by any chance just wondered how much > extra power you gained > p > - Original Message - > From: > To: "KRnet" > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:35 PM > Subject: Re: KR> Geared vs direct drive Turbo & my 2 cents > > > > I love this subject and have contemplated turbo charging my 2180 for quite > > some time. I feel I have extensive knowledge of turbo charging systems as > I > > have done extensive amounts of turbo and turbo engine work on automobile > > applications. > > > > However, and not to slight anyone here, I don't think I would ever > consider > > taking a turbo from one application and believe I could bolt it to my VW > > 2180 or a Corvair engine and expect success. > > > > I cut my teeth in turbo experimenting with automobiles. I will also credit > > much of the knowledge I gained came from many individuals involved in the > > Shelby Dodge Auto Clubs. Here is what I learned. Or, I could just cut to > the > > finish and suggest that if you want to turbo your airplane, start with a > > proven turbo and engine application and then make minor modifications as > you > > need. But back to what I learned. > > > > With a turbo several things are critical to it's success. > > I would say that the most important is proper air fuel ratio delivery and > > the ability to monitor that. In an aircraft , this would be highly > critical. > > I think more engines blow up ( turbo or normally aspirated) because they > get > > to a lean mixture condition. Adding a turbo makes this even more of an > > issue. For that matter, anything that increases horsepower makes fuel > > delivery very important. So, fuel injection would be my choice over a carb > > on this subject. I would also install an air fuel meter. > > > > You would also need to deal with the great deal of increased heat that a > > turbo creates. Both to your oil and probably even your air fuel mixture. > > Cooling the air fuel mixture can be done with and intercooler. The > increase > > in oil temps would be a challenge to your oil cooler and oil delivery > > system. You may also need to deal with the fact that when you shut off the > > engine, all that hot oil from your turbo will drain
KR> Geared vs direct drive Turbo & my 2 cents
--- jeffyor...@qx.net wrote: > I love this subject and have contemplated turbo > charging my 2180 > Jeff York KR-2 Flying N839BG Jeff, That's why they call it "experimental". I think the huge success of the KR is that it is simple. Add enough complexity and you end up with a different plane (Lancair) or you never get it built. There's lots of room for improvement, so most KR builders get to enjoy a life-time of tweaking long after their KR is flying. What more could you ask for? Frank Frank Ross, EAA Chapter 35, San Geronimo, TX RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk, England, UK Visit my photo album at: http://photos.yahoo.com/alamokr2 __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
KR> Geared vs direct drive Turbo & my 2 cents
I am turbo charging my VW/Rayjay Happi variant. I have added to the design a larger Oil cooler, wastegate, pop-off valve and ECU controlled fuel injection configured and PC programmable MAP. The pop off valve and wastegate have special selected springs. I have also added ceramic coatings to the combustion chamber, Nicke aluminum cylinders and poly coated bearings. All investments are made and I will assemble the engine after I finish the airplane. By the way I have some fuel injection manifolds for a 2180 for sale if anyone is interested. Ronald R. Eason Sr. President / CEO Ph: 816-468-4091 Fax: 816-468-5465 http://www.jrl-engineering.com Our Attitude Makes The Difference! -Original Message- From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf Of jeffyor...@qx.net Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 4:36 PM To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR> Geared vs direct drive Turbo & my 2 cents I love this subject and have contemplated turbo charging my 2180 for quite some time. I feel I have extensive knowledge of turbo charging systems as I have done extensive amounts of turbo and turbo engine work on automobile applications. However, and not to slight anyone here, I don't think I would ever consider taking a turbo from one application and believe I could bolt it to my VW 2180 or a Corvair engine and expect success. I cut my teeth in turbo experimenting with automobiles. I will also credit much of the knowledge I gained came from many individuals involved in the Shelby Dodge Auto Clubs. Here is what I learned. Or, I could just cut to the finish and suggest that if you want to turbo your airplane, start with a proven turbo and engine application and then make minor modifications as you need. But back to what I learned. With a turbo several things are critical to it's success. I would say that the most important is proper air fuel ratio delivery and the ability to monitor that. In an aircraft , this would be highly critical. I think more engines blow up ( turbo or normally aspirated) because they get to a lean mixture condition. Adding a turbo makes this even more of an issue. For that matter, anything that increases horsepower makes fuel delivery very important. So, fuel injection would be my choice over a carb on this subject. I would also install an air fuel meter. You would also need to deal with the great deal of increased heat that a turbo creates. Both to your oil and probably even your air fuel mixture. Cooling the air fuel mixture can be done with and intercooler. The increase in oil temps would be a challenge to your oil cooler and oil delivery system. You may also need to deal with the fact that when you shut off the engine, all that hot oil from your turbo will drain down to your engine , thus increasing oil temps after shut down. The most reliable automotive turbo's use both oil and engine coolant to keep the turbo cool. You also need a reliable way to regulate the waste gate. Or in other words you have to be able to keep the turbo from overboosting. Again, I believe you need to monitor this with a guage. If not you will never be able to keep head gaskets on your engine. You would also burn holes in the tops of your pistons, burn valves and so on and so on. Speaking of valves, my experience leads me to believe that you would need to change the exhaust valves on your engine as well , in order to deal with the increased temps of combustion. This goes back to the idea of starting with a reliable engine turbo combination. I could go on and on with the subject of turbo charging. I would also say that I think it is the cheapest and best way to get more ponies and torque out of an engine. I also would guess that there are people on this list that know 10 times more then me on turbo charging. But I qualify my information with the years I spent experimenting with turbo in automobiles and that I was able to take a 2.2 four cylinder engine of 140 horsepower and develop a reliable dyno tested 360 HP with incredible amounts of torque. But, I did this using a tried and tested engine and turbo combination. I was able to take advantage of computerized controls for fuel delivery and waste gate controls. I was able to write my own computerized fuel tables and timing curves to assure air fuel mixture at various RPM ranges. This was all done via Engine ECU and interfacing a laptop computer. And the whole system seems a little complex for a KR2. I also need to mention that I struggled with all the items mentioned above. No big deal when on the ground ( ok maybe a few towing bills and head gaskets and parts and such) but I sure wouldn't want to have those issues in the air. I would still like to turbo an engine for my KR2. I am still unsure of the best, lightest and most reliable way to do it. Maybe I will start with some Rev Master turbo parts and go from there. Jeff York KR-2 Flying N839BG Home page http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/ My KR-2 http://web.qx.ne
KR> Geared vs direct drive Turbo & my 2 cents
Ok, Now this is along the lines of my interest. I would like to keep up with the results of your efforts and the specifications of the modifications you are performing. Do you have a website that you will be posting results and pics to? I would also be interested in your injection system. How much ect? Jeff York KR-2 Flying N839BG Home page http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/ My KR-2 http://web.qx.net/jeffyork40/Airplane/ to see my KR-2 Email jeffyor...@qx.net - Original Message - From: "Ronald R.Eason" To: "'KRnet'" Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 12:18 PM Subject: RE: KR> Geared vs direct drive Turbo & my 2 cents > I am turbo charging my VW/Rayjay Happi variant. I have added to the design a > larger Oil cooler, wastegate, pop-off valve and ECU controlled fuel > injection configured and PC programmable MAP. The pop off valve and > wastegate have special selected springs. I have also added ceramic coatings > to the combustion chamber, Nicke aluminum cylinders and poly coated > bearings. All investments are made and I will assemble the engine after I > finish the airplane. > > By the way I have some fuel injection manifolds for a 2180 for sale if > anyone is interested. > > Ronald R. Eason Sr. > President / CEO > Ph: 816-468-4091 > Fax: 816-468-5465 > http://www.jrl-engineering.com > Our Attitude Makes The Difference! > > > -Original Message- > From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf > Of jeffyor...@qx.net > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 4:36 PM > To: KRnet > Subject: Re: KR> Geared vs direct drive Turbo & my 2 cents > > I love this subject and have contemplated turbo charging my 2180 for quite > some time. I feel I have extensive knowledge of turbo charging systems as I > have done extensive amounts of turbo and turbo engine work on automobile > applications. > > However, and not to slight anyone here, I don't think I would ever consider > taking a turbo from one application and believe I could bolt it to my VW > 2180 or a Corvair engine and expect success. > > I cut my teeth in turbo experimenting with automobiles. I will also credit > much of the knowledge I gained came from many individuals involved in the > Shelby Dodge Auto Clubs. Here is what I learned. Or, I could just cut to the > finish and suggest that if you want to turbo your airplane, start with a > proven turbo and engine application and then make minor modifications as you > need. But back to what I learned. > > With a turbo several things are critical to it's success. > I would say that the most important is proper air fuel ratio delivery and > the ability to monitor that. In an aircraft , this would be highly critical. > I think more engines blow up ( turbo or normally aspirated) because they get > to a lean mixture condition. Adding a turbo makes this even more of an > issue. For that matter, anything that increases horsepower makes fuel > delivery very important. So, fuel injection would be my choice over a carb > on this subject. I would also install an air fuel meter. > > You would also need to deal with the great deal of increased heat that a > turbo creates. Both to your oil and probably even your air fuel mixture. > Cooling the air fuel mixture can be done with and intercooler. The increase > in oil temps would be a challenge to your oil cooler and oil delivery > system. You may also need to deal with the fact that when you shut off the > engine, all that hot oil from your turbo will drain down to your engine , > thus increasing oil temps after shut down. The most reliable automotive > turbo's use both oil and engine coolant to keep the turbo cool. > > You also need a reliable way to regulate the waste gate. Or in other words > you have to be able to keep the turbo from overboosting. Again, I believe > you need to monitor this with a guage. If not you will never be able to keep > head gaskets on your engine. You would also burn holes in the tops of your > pistons, burn valves and so on and so on. Speaking of valves, my experience > leads me to believe that you would need to change the exhaust valves on your > engine as well , in order to deal with the increased temps of combustion. > This goes back to the idea of starting with a reliable engine turbo > combination. > > I could go on and on with the subject of turbo charging. I would also say > that I think it is the cheapest and best way to get more ponies and torque > out of an engine. I also would guess that there are people on this list that > know 10 times more then me on turbo charging. But I qualify my information > with the years I spent experimenting with turbo in automobiles and that I > was able to tak
