Subject: auto engines
From: rotaryeng
Date: 6/13/2012, 11:12 PM
To: AAAA Put this in the To box


 I happens to have a lot of faith in GM engines. They , like everything
     else, are not perfect. Chevy had camshaft problems in the
 distance    past,and the timing chain is the first thing you dump
 when you hop  up  the engines, gears are much more reliable.However
 it is the Chryslers    that like to jump teeth with their plastic
 gears etc. Fords had problems    in their V8's a decade ago with too
 few threads holding the spark    plugs.Aircraft engines are made
 with the finest steel and  techniques
 available...................in the 1940's!! If I have  such a high
  opinion of the word "certified" I would not be looking  at
 alternate  engines.They published my letter in the latest Flying
  mag. on that subject.  Another reason for the nickel content is for
  a bit better corrosion  resistance, which a/c have more than many
  cars. The nickel content also  add some toughness, but I don't
 think  they have any where near as much  as in amour plating.

     Auto engines had incremental improvements  through the years,
   while   aircraft engines are at a stand still, and still have lead
   in the gas.   The auto industry, easily 100 times the size, within
 a  time span of 3  years, had the lead removed starting in
  1975?Basically with hardened   valve seats and to get the necessary
  octane with more refining without   the lead. Now they use
 ethanol.They had incentive from governments,   especially Calif.

     A 400 HP engine only use a small fraction on the highway, that is
   no  indication of the engine's toughness. A Chevy small block 350
   cubic inch  can easily put out twice that or even more in dragster
 applications    where the engine life is 1 mile.

     I heard of how they pushed these engines during endurance
   testings,  some  with pictures of the turbo glowing red hot.So a
   race modified 400 HP  Chevy LS engine at 350 HP cruise would easily
   outlast the standard 2000  hr. TBO , the TBO times could rival that
   of a PT-6! I think the % of  certified engines that made it to TBO
   is around 5% or less.  But the piston engine do have several
 inherit  disadvantages, compare  with rotary and turbines, more part
 count,  liquid cooling, and the re  drive, one more thing to go wrong.

     The re drive  I think is only troublesome for the smaller HP
     applications, where there are more space, weight  and budget
     constraints. Even Rotex, with their engineer resources available
   to   them, had their shares of AD's.By the time you get to 300 HP,
   I don't   hear as much complaints.All turbines have re drives, for
   prop, fan or  accessories, yet the PT-6 have a reputation for reliability.
    One thing the Viking engines(and Rotex) taught me, they use Evans
    coolant. This stuff boil at 375F, a significant margin in
   borderline  detonation cases in boosted engines. That means I only
   need a minimal  amount of pressure (0-5 Psi?) to aid circulation
 and  to forget the  pressure for raising the boiling point.That increase
   reliability. The  engine may run a bit hotter.  Tony Lam

     A race modified  V8 is lucky to last a 24 hour race.
     It took GM several years on a Le Mans programed dyno to get a
   Chevy V8 to  last 24 hours. We had to back off on the sprint car
   power red line. As it was, GM  used all aircraft qulity parts. The
   engines were then worth over $100,000 in today's  dollar. The
   fundamental problem is inadequate bore spacing and the V8
   configuration,

     http://www.rotaryeng.net/DS-smith-art.pdf

     Smithsonian Air & Space magazine article "Power Struggle" by Don
     Sherman, January 1997, page 72. Excellent ten page  article (with
     many pictures) about auto engines in airplanes. A brief history
 of    all auto engines in airplanes and a more detailed history of
 the    twenty year, twenty million dollar  development of the Chevy
 V8    based, all aluminum Orenda liquid cooled aircraft engine. At this
     time (Jan 1997) and well after the article was written the engine
     failed its FAA 150 hour full power certification test due to a
     crankshaft problem after 20 years of very expensive development.
     It was finally certified in 1998 by Transport Canada.

     Extensive changes have been made to the basic Chevy big block
   engine  including a parallel cooling system with dual coolant pumps
   as  opposed to the serial cooling system with single pump as
   typically  found in automotive engines. Parallel cooling systems
   were  considered to be essential in the 1920's on liquid cooled aircraft
     engines.

     Engine length is almost everything to a car designer. Engine
   cooling  compromises are made by simezing the cylinder walls in automotive
     engines. Crankshaft life at high continuous power is compromised
   by   shortening the length, leaving too little room for adequate
   size   journal fillet radii. In my opinion this engine will not be
   successful until it is re-designed from a clean sheet of paper to
 be  a real aircraft engine. If that happens they might as well go to
 a  horizontal opposed configuration for lighter weight.

     Orenda is now in the process of moving the project to Nova Scotia
     and injecting another 32 million dollars of mostly Canadian
     government money. They are also attempting to market the engine
 to    the homebuilt market. I don't expect many takers at over $100K
 per  engine.

     Recently Lancair gave up after spending a lot of money installing
     the engine in a special airplane called the Lancair Tigress.
     The engine and the Tigress were donated to the EAA museum as
     a tax write off.

     The Orenda company is now bankrupt.

     http://www.rotaryeng.net/DS-smith-art.pdf

     Paul Lamar

    A few years back, NASA had an LS 1 engine put through  FAA aicraft
   engine  certification testing.  With only minor problems, it
 passed.   They were operating at a low power of about 280 hp max at 4000rpm
   if I recall, as they intended it to direct shaft drive a ducted
   prop; no gearing.  When they told the GM engineers of the details
 of  the certification test, they laughed.  "We torture them alot
 harded than  that."  Many current auto engines could be developed
 into  satisfactory engines for experimental aircraft.   I agree that
 the  rotary is the best choice in most cases.

    Murry I Rozansky

    I remember that project. It never got off the ground let alone a
   prototype. All a paper study. NASA proposed a ducted fan pusher
   powered by a Corvette engine at OSH in 2004-2006. The people they
   had on that project were idiots led by Mark D. Moore. Mark Moore
 did  not even have a pilots license at the time.  Ducted fans don't work
   in that power/speed range. The duct itself creates a lot of drag.
   Don't get me started on ducted fans :) Surprisingly and ironically
    Francesco Iannetti, developer of the ceramic apex seals for the
   rotary, did the dyno test of the LS1 V8 in 2003.

    The whole project was a typical federal government gross waste of
 money.   No results. No hardware. No airplane. No flight. The
 program was an  out and out failure.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     Next Generation NASA GA Advanced Concept

    Quote the NASA pdf on that project:

    "Historically,
    most automotive engine conversions to aircraft use have
    been failures. The basic reason appears to be that the
    developers try to get aircraft engine performance out of
    an engine that is at a fundamental disadvantage
    because it has not been designed with similar
    compromises. For example, liquid cooling is heavier
    than air cooling, particularly when the whole system is
    taken into account. This [UTF-8?][UTF-8?]doesn’t mean that there
 [UTF-  [UTF-8?]8?]aren’t  advantages to liquid cooling that may make
 it  attractive,  but to expect the liquid cooled engine to have the same
   power to weight ratio is unreasonable. The temptation to  [UTF-
   [UTF-8?]8?]“hop [UTF-8?][UTF-8?]up† the automotive engine to
get a comparable
    power to weight ratio is difficult to resist, and usually
    results in a series of escalating decisions that both raise
    the cost of the engine and lower the reliability. It is just
    not possible to get aircraft engine performance and low
    cost out of an automotive engine at the same time.
    There have been four certified aircraft engines that have
    started as automotive engines. They are the Orenda
    OE-600, the Porsche PFM, the Toyota FV4000, and the
    Thielert Centurion 1.7. Of these, only the Thielert is
    currently being installed by an OEM on new airframes."

    "The Porsche PFM is a typical example of what happens
    when an automotive engine is retrofitted onto an
    airframe designed for an aircraft engine. Even after
    replacing most of the components for enhanced
    durability at high power levels, the engine added 91 kg
    (200 lb) to the empty weight, 13 kW (17 hp) to the
    power, $100,000 to the price and actually dropped top
    speed by 9 km (5 kts). It is no wonder that it sold poorly
    and that Porsche is buying back the engines to destroy
    them to reduce liability exposure"

    "The key to getting the cost benefit of an automotive
    engine is to leave it as much of an automotive engine as
    possible, and design an airframe to work well with it.
    Because of previous experiences, there is a general
    belief that the automotive engine [UTF-8?][UTF-8?]can’t operate at
 the   high power duty cycles that the aircraft engine does,   which
 is true if maintaining the same power to weight   ratio is
 important. If it is not important, then the engine   can be de-rated
 to a point that it will function just as well   as the aircraft
 engine, albeit at a heavier weight. To   prove this, Iannetti ran
 his preferred Chevrolet LS-1   Corvette engine in a dynamometer,
 simulating the   Federal Aviation [UTF-8?][UTF-8?]Administration’s
 [UTF-8?][UTF-8?](FAA’s)  150-hour FAR  part 33.49b engine endurance
 test [27] (Figure 33).  While the test did not simulate the
 vibratory  characteristics of  the long shaft and Q-fan, it did show
  that the engine was easily  capable of passing the same  test that
 all piston aircraft engines  must pass from a duty  cycle perspective."
    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    280/400 is 70% max power to begin with. So it made 70% power for several
    5 minute periods. Then it ran the rest of the test at 196 HP or
 50%  power. Max HP occurs at 5500 RPM or above.

    That is known as de-rating. Any auto eninge will pass the FAA test
    if you de-rate it enough. Passing the test is not enough.  The FAA
   then grants a TBO. The Orenda engine was granted only a 1200 hour TBO.

    The bare aluminum LS1 engine is 400 pounds.
    To that you need to add a gear box which for a typical V8 would
   weigh 80 to 100 pounds. The Orenda firewall forward came out to
 1000  pounds. Typical LS1 firewall forward are 500 to 600 pounds.

    Paul Lamar

   My parents have a ford 302c in their luxury sedan with 550,000 ks
 on  it, when they bought it 500,000 ks. Ex hire car ( Kind of a
 luxury  taxi, and on LPG). The Cleveland design V8 was made in Oz by
 ford  Australia under license. They have more iron than U.S.
 Cleveland  engines and weigh, well, lots.(and lots) When emissions control
   really got going (1980) they choked the life out of these engines.
   The cams were designed for low end grunt and no power above
 3750rpm.  Max power new would only have been around 150hp on
 gasolene. So yes  Paul is right de-rate it you will get longevity,
 but power to weight  is EXTREMELY poor. Good for highway cruising (
 120kph at 1300rpm)   with enough torque for overtaking, and good for
 boat anchors.  Aircraft? no. Don't get me wrong it's a great car and
 a pleasure to  drive and I do like V8's, for cars. Graeme Riley

   A friend has a 1982 Pontiac Parisienne that has a Chev(GM division)
   engine with 4 barrel carb. He changes oil regularly. 1500 Km's
 (1000  Mi). he also drives like grandma Moses. The maintainence is
 the big  thing but exceptionally low duty cycle contribute. He
 replaced the  timing chain for all metal when the nylon cam gear
 failed. At the  same time the camshaft was replaced with an RV
 style. Other than the  HO 305 in Camaros, the engineers spec'd a cam
 with less lift on the  intake lobe than the 350 engines for
 emissions reasons. They had  poor fuel economy, power and driveability.

  I had one in a 1092
   Blazer that cycled in and out of over drive almost continually.
 Both  his and mine had the cams replaced with a 350 RV cam that had split
   pattern duration and more lift than factory. My Blazer almost
   completely cured the shift cycle problem and driveability was
 vastly  improved. Fuel economy went from 15miles/Imp gallon to
   19. My friend hasa also installed an overdrive auto trans and
 headers. This car has 440,000Km on it now and runs like a top. It
 has the typical Chev puff of blue smoke due to valve seals on
 startup but does not use oil between changes.

   Dale Davies

   Sorry folks,
   The Blazer was a 1982. Was involved in a MVA Friday night. Filled
 the co. truck and washed it. Went for dinner with a friend as his BD
 was Monday.
  8:50PM I was leaving his place and approaching a left turn onto the
 Hwy/road through town. Some clown had stolen a Dodge 1/2 ton in Fox
 Creek 90Km away, right in front of the police. They followed at
 speeds up to 150KPH. Almost 100MPH. He darted into the right turn
 lane and ran the red light. Struck my co. truck just behind the LR
 wheel and spun me around. The stolen truck went about 150 yards and
 curved to the left. It went over the center median and the LF and RR
 wheels were knocked off. The RR axle sheared off at the wheel
 bearing. Lots of witnesses that said he ran the red at a high speed.
 No injuries and the perp jumped out the passenger side of the Dodge
 and ran through the Ford dealer lot and circled around. About 8
 police cars were there in less then 2 minutes. When a witness told
 them he  had bailed out through the dealership they went looking for
 him. Caught him after he had gone behind the police station and was
 apprehended behind the hospital.  I am extremely blessed as I could
 have been killed if the timing had been slightly different.

  Dale Davies

 --Far-out Dale, what are the chances of walking away from that!!!!!!
 I'm -- guessing that you had less than 50% chance of survival, much less
 -- escaping without serious injury. Did you see him coming or just
 the -- impact? Time for a new truck aye.

 Graeme Riley.

 Graeme, what email program are you using?

 Paul Lamar



 Hi Graeme,
I had angels looking over me on that one. Seeing as he struck my truck at the
very back it was not bad. If it had been a fraction of a second sooner I would
have been hit in the driver side doors. In that case the chances of survival
would be extremely slim. I did buy a lottery ticket. Found out since the jerk
driving the stolen truck has had numerous previous offenses. Still no aches
out of it so I am pretty sure I am good.
I only saw him coming a fraction of a second before impact. I looked both ways
before entering the intersection and did not notice anyone coming. Witnesses
said he darted into the right turn lane at high speed. It is fortunate that
the Tim Hortons doughnut shop employees were not walking across at that time.
The world has gone nuts!

Dale Davies



-- The Rotary Engine News Letter. Powered by Linux. ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net You Tube key word PaulLamar2 Copyright 1998-2012 All world wide rights reserved.