Colin, Thank-you, I will respond to your additional comments below in CAPS- for the sake of Clarity, not SHOUTING! This dialog is intended to be friendly, not Tense... --- Colin & Bev Rainey <crain...@cfl.rr.com> wrote: > Scott & netters, > Good points well taken. However some are > distortions, and some are responses to my > miscommunications, which I will clarify now.
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. COLIN, ALTHOUGH I AGREE WITH YOU IN PART OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE, THE FAILURE MODE OF ELECTRONICS MAKE THE USE OF SUCH DEVICES IN AIRCRAFT UNDESIRABLE. THEY WORK PERFECTLY RIGHT UP TO THE NANOSECOND BEFORE THEY FAIL. 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. IN EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT, WHO IS GOING TO PUT A CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ON THE PANEL? WHAT REQUIRES SOMEONE TO DO SO? MOST BUILDERS WOULD EITHER OPT OUT, OR SIMPLY NOT INCORPORATE SUCH A LIGHT INTO THE PANEL. WHEN THE COMPUTER DECIDES TO ENTER THE LIMP-IN MODE, THAT ENGINE IS MOST LIKELY TO STOP MAKING ENOUGH POWER TO KEEP THE AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE. > > 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. HOWEVER, NEITHER ENGINE IS APPROVED FOR AEROBATIC USE, AND I KNOW THE CORVAIR IS NOT APPROVED, NOR RECOMMENDED FOR IFR USE. ONE INTERESTING SIDE NOTE: THE VW BOXER ENGINE WAS DESIGNED BY DR. FERDINAND PORSCHE FROM: AN AIRCRAFT ENGINE. IT'S NOT SURPRISING TO ME WHY THAT ENGINE HAS BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL AS AN EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ENGINE. 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. COLIN, AGAIN I PARTIALLY AGREE, HOWEVER WITH A PSRU, YOU ADD ADDITIONAL WEIGHT, BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY HAVE ADDED ADDITIONAL FAILURE POINTS. BELTS ARE NOTORIUS FOR STRIPPING AND BREAKING. AGAIN, EVEN THE PSRU's ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR AEROBATIC MANUVUERS 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. AGAIN AS WILLIAM WYNNE SUGGESTS, THE FAILURE MODE OF THE ELECTRONICS MAKES THIS OPTION LESS THAN DESIREABLE. THERE ARE GPU ENGINES RUNNING OIL RIG / OIL PUMPING STATIONS THAT HAVE TRANSISTORIZED MAGNETOS, BUT LOOK AT THE APPLICATION, IF THE ELECTRONICS SUDDENLY STOP WORKING, PEOPLE DON'T DIE... IT'S NON-FLIGHT HARDWARE. 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. AGAIN, I PARTIALLY AGREE, DUAL PLUGS HOWEVER ARE ONLY A START. WHAT ABOUT THE REST? DO THE IGNITION SYSTEMS HAVE A SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE? FOR INSTANCE A SINGLE DISTRIBUTOR CAP AND ROTOR? IF SO, YOU ARE BACK TO A SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE. > Redundancy is as easy as having a second dedicated > battery to just the ignition system. COLIN, NOT SO QUICK, AGAIN, REDUNDANT SYSTEMS ARE COMPLETELY INDEPENDANT OF EACH OTHER. KEY WORD BEING COMPLETELY. SIMPLY ADDING A BATTERY DEDICATED TO JUST THE IGNITION SYSTEM IS NOT A REDUNDANT SYSTEM. IN FACT JUST THE OPPOSITE, HOW IS THE BATTERY FLIGHT MAINTAINED? HOW IS THE BATTERY CHARGED AND INSURED READY FOR FLIGHT? WE'VE ALL HEARD ABOUT HOW FLASHLIGHTS ARE CYLINDRICAL METAL CONTAINERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STORING DEAD BATTERIES....IT'S TO EASY TO NEGLECT SUCH A SYSTEM IN MY OPINION. BACK ON REDUNDANCY: PORSCHE EVEN TRIED IT WITH MOONEY, HERE'S AN ARTICLE ABOUT IT: http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html 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) NOT EXACTLY, THE YELLOW TAG IS MORE THAN JUST A PIECE OF PAPER & VOLTAGE SETTINGS. THERE ARE PLENTY OF ALTERNATOR AND STARTER REBUILD FACILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN "WARNED" BY THE FAA ABOUT REBUILDING FLIGHT HARDWARE WITH AUTOMOTIVE PARTS. THERE ALSO HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS FAILURES OF SUCH PARTS THAT PROMPTED SUCH ACTION. THERE ARE REASONS WHY FLIGHT PARTS ARE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE. TESTING AND QUALITY CONTROL TO NAME A FEW, NOT TO MENTION INSURANCE REQUIRED BY A CERTIFIED OVERHAUL FACILITY.(THAT'S A WHOLE BAGA WORMS I'D RATHER NOT OPEN) 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..... YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR EALIER POST ABOUT BUILDING 10 CORVAIRS FOR THE PRICE OF ONE FLIGHT ENGINE. A NEW 0-360 IS ADVERTISED IN KITPLANES FOR $17,000, CARB, MAGS, EXHAUST-COMPLETE. YOU WOULD BE VERY HARD PRESSED TO BUILD 10 COMPLETE CORVAIR CONVERSIONS, LIKELY EQUIPPED FOR $17,000. YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO BUILD 4 CORVAIR CONVERSIONS, BUT THEY WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO PERFORM IN A LIKE MANNER, OR WITH THE SAME POWER OF A O-360 (180 HP). I.E: IT WOULDN'T BE AEROBATIC OR IFR CAPABLE, AND WOULD HAVE ONLY 2/3RDS THE POWER. WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IS NOT TO DISUADE THE USE OF AUTO CONVERSIONS, BUT TO ENLIGHTEN SOME FOLKS ABOUT THEIR USE AND THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENSES AND LIMITATIONS OF SUCH USE. FLIGHT IS VERY ENJOYABLE PASTIME, BUT NOT WITHOUT RISKS. FLIGHT HARDWARE IN EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT HAVE OFTEN FAILED, NOT BECAUSE OF AN INHERANT FAULT IN THE FLIGHT HARDWARE, BUT BECAUSE THERE WAS A DEFIECENCY IN THE APPLICATION AND/OR INSTALLATION. AS AN EXAMPLE, I READ ABOUT A EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT OWNER THAT WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT HIS O-360 OVERHEATING, TRASHING THE CYLINDERS, WARPING THE CASES, ETC. ETC. DIRECTLY BLAMED HIS OVERHEATING PROBLEMS ON THE PILE OF JUNK ENGINE, TO QUOTE HIM. FURTHER INQUIRY'S REVEALED SEVERAL PROBLEMS WITH HIS INSTALLATION: A CUSTOM "LOW PROFILE" COWLING THAT ALTHOUGH LOOKED NICE, IT DIDN'T PROVIDE ANYTHING NEAR THE REQUIRED AIRFLOW VOLUME REQUIRED TO COOL THE ENGINE. NO COWL FLAPS, AND A EXHAUST TUCKED RIGHT UP AGAINST THE CYLINDERS. IT BOGGLES THE MIND TO EVEN THINK THE AIRPALNE HE MADE IT THROUGH TAXI TESTING. MY POINT BEING, IS THAT MANY EXPERIMENTERS NEGLECT THE OVERALL PICTURE, UNDER ENGINEER A SYSTEM, THAN RATHER ACCEPT THE FAILURE CAUSED BT THEMSELVES, BLAME THE HARDWARE FOR THE FAILURE. JUST MY OPINION..... ===== Scott Cable KR-2S # 735 Wright City, MO s2cab...@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
