snips....
Why the 1.9L Ford four cylinder engine? What is your reasoning? What
does it weigh with the turbo?
My reasons to purchase that engine were:
1. Dave Blanton, who AFAIK was well respected for his aeronautical
engineering prowess, strongly recommended that engine, and even
mentioned that it would work well in a Mustang II.
2. PSRU came with it, saving me lots of money.
3. Blanton said Ford claimed the engine produces 143 hp -- Motor Manuals
confirmed that value but they must have also been taking Ford's word for
it.
4. Blanton was very enthusiastic about this engine for several reasons.
Too bad they were only in production for a short while. He put one
(normally aspirated) in a Cessna 152 for testing. With the Continental
engine their prop would only turn about 2500 rpm; with the 1.9L HO it
would turn past 2700 but he limited it to 2700 (prop limit?)
5. It is computer controlled so mixture is optimized for temp and
alititude.
6. It has electronic fuel injection.
7. Parts are available almost everywhere.
8. I can run mogas, if I use octane enhancer. In fact, the 100LL will
cause the O2 sensor to fail in less than a tankful (25 gallons.) I'd
have to take the sensor out and burn it for 10 minutes with a propane
torch to get the lead off.
9. Water cooled engines are more fuel efficient than air cooled ones.
10. Auto engines are much more reliable than "certificated" engines.
11. Overhaul costs are less than 1/10th (sometimes less than 1/100th)
the cost of "certificated" overhauls.
12. Even though the stock engine doesn't actually produce what Ford says
it will, I have too much money in the system to change until the engine
proves itself unworkable. Turbocharging and intercooling it should cost
me less than $700 versus $7k for another auto engine (rotary), mount,
and psru, or $7k for a high time unreliable certificated engine and
different prop.
With turbo, water and all accessories, about 370 lbs, and another 12 lbs
for the ground adjustable prop. Comparing weights, the previous engine
was the O-320 (298 lbs? without accessories) with a Hartzell constant
speed prop (52 lbs?. The Ford weighs a couple of pounds more, but the
moment arms are better, since the prop is 40 lbs lighter.
Keep us informed of your progress as it is always nice to have someone
confirm conventional wisdom from time to time.
Confirm conventional wisdom? Many possible interpretations of your
line. As in confirming that the engine won't work as planned?
Good Luck
Paul Lamar
Thanks!!!
Please, if I am wrong with any of this, let me know (except for the
religious debate regarding auto versus certificated.) Yes, several
people have theorized that the little engine will be overworked and will
self destruct shortly.
It has nothing to do with religion.
Don't fool yourself. Run the calculations on average car HP required yourself.
The frontal area (FA) of a car is around 18 square feet. Don't take my word
for it measure it. The drag factor Cd is .35. Probably .32 for a modern car.
Drag is Cd times FA times MPH squared times air density factor(.0026 at sea
level).
Aero HP necessary is drag times velocity in feet per second divided by 550.
Rolling HP required is about equal to drag HP at 60 MPH and is a linear
function of speed.
You can calculate the additional HP to climb a hill by knowing
how fast the load is going straight up. On a 3% grade you go
straight up 3% of the distance you move forward. 550 pounds moving
straight up at one foot per second is one HP.
If you cannot do the calculations install a manifold pressure
gage and monitor that. If this does not convince you you have
no business using this engine in an airplane that requires
150 HP. It might work fine in an ultrlight at 80 HP or so if
you could get it off the ground due to the extra weight.
I can only counter that that hasn't happened
when people have actually used the engine in the higher hp ranges, some
for over 100k miles with mixed regular and race driving. I don't count
the 330 hp versions that are used for street driving and drag strips, as
3 out of 8 of those that I've talked to have blown up. None of the 200
hp versions have done so except one that had a faulty wastegate that
spiked to over 30.
AI Nut
Racing and road driving does not does not count. Not the same duty cycle
as aircraft.
How many turbo 1.9L Ford engines have you seen flying around in airplanes?
If you crash or kill yourself people will say; "just another auto engine!"
Paul Lamar
I hate to say negative things about anyone--- but Mr. Blanton (senior) is unable
to calculate HP the same as every other technically capable person in the
world and spent quite a few months publicly "correcting" everyone else for
calculating HP incorrectly. I have met them both and worked with a friend
that installed a Blanton V6 in a Glassair AFTER running it with a Lyc.
The performance was nowhere near what Blanton claimed it would be and
both Blantons were a continuous stream of excuses why the performance
deficit was the builder's fault and not any of thiers. The performance of
the 200+ (?) hp Ford V6 was not even close to a 150 HP Lyc in the same
airframe.
Caveat emptor. There is a whole lot of snake oil being sold out there.
Bill Freeman
Long EZ builder & pilot
BSME, MSME
EAA Technical Counselor
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ http://www.linux.org