Lycoming, Continental and Rotax
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cont (roversial) v lyc etc
I think Mach E Avelli might be wrong about the outboard motors. The reason they were not reliable is because their American. All of the new jap outboards are outstanding. The Yanks get lazy when they dominate the market. The movie "the Texasa chainsaw massacre " must have been ficton as the Mculloch (american) chainsaw actually started , the hockey mask was probably canadian.
Mind you , the IO 540 never let me down. It's just ancient!!
Maybe Honda could make 6 cylinder and call it an American name , beastmaster, or some thing. They could even engineer an oil leak for Wombat.
MC
Mind you , the IO 540 never let me down. It's just ancient!!
Maybe Honda could make 6 cylinder and call it an American name , beastmaster, or some thing. They could even engineer an oil leak for Wombat.
MC
G'Day Doc,
How's that IO-550 in the 'Holden of the sky' shaping up??
How much faster / fuel burn than a 'normal' 210??
Regards,
Griffo
Is that one, one of those "Atlantic Conversion" thingies??
How's that IO-550 in the 'Holden of the sky' shaping up??
How much faster / fuel burn than a 'normal' 210??
Regards,
Griffo
Is that one, one of those "Atlantic Conversion" thingies??
mustafagander
I do have an argument there mate!
There have been a few proven conversions out there involving automotive engines eg. Oliander V8 Chevrolet 454 engines fitted to Queenair airframes in Canada back in the mid 80's with full approval.
I do not know if you remember the Vickers Vimmy replica that flew all the way from England to Australia with god knows how many stops on the way due to speed but made it to Bankstown with two (again) V8 454 Chevrolet truck engines fitted. Low revving engines with no problems at all. I have seen internals of several Lyc/Con engines many times and they are no different to internals of most high performance automotive engines.
And when it comes to oils, it all depends on the application.
There have been a few proven conversions out there involving automotive engines eg. Oliander V8 Chevrolet 454 engines fitted to Queenair airframes in Canada back in the mid 80's with full approval.
I do not know if you remember the Vickers Vimmy replica that flew all the way from England to Australia with god knows how many stops on the way due to speed but made it to Bankstown with two (again) V8 454 Chevrolet truck engines fitted. Low revving engines with no problems at all. I have seen internals of several Lyc/Con engines many times and they are no different to internals of most high performance automotive engines.
And when it comes to oils, it all depends on the application.
Sunfish
Wait till you start your endorsement on a Chieftain and see which way the "other prop" turns! Do not freak out because i warned you!
We are all mad after all.
We are all mad after all.
Orenda engines never delivered, derived from the cadillac northstar v8, 100 million dollars spent trying to make a car engine into an aircraft one.
Take another look at an aircraft crankshaft vs. a cars, they are very different.
As it has been stated many times on this and other threads, try and find an engine that reliably makes it to TBO (a decent time interval!), is rebuildable (not thrown away) and runs wide open for thousands of hours in all temperatures while delivering up to 300hp.
They might seem expensive but the alternatives end up just as costly.
Isnt the 100hp Cont. up to 2400hr TBO?
Some of the big recips from the 50's delivered low .3s' on Specific fuel burn, not too reliably at times admittedly.
Take another look at an aircraft crankshaft vs. a cars, they are very different.
As it has been stated many times on this and other threads, try and find an engine that reliably makes it to TBO (a decent time interval!), is rebuildable (not thrown away) and runs wide open for thousands of hours in all temperatures while delivering up to 300hp.
They might seem expensive but the alternatives end up just as costly.
Isnt the 100hp Cont. up to 2400hr TBO?
Some of the big recips from the 50's delivered low .3s' on Specific fuel burn, not too reliably at times admittedly.
Fred
I would like you to come and look at some of the crankshafts that i work with. They are in a 7000 hp top fuel drag race engines that run on pure alcohol with a shot of nitro fuel to top it off at a conservative 9500rpm. I think they are exposed to a "little more load" than your IGSO 540 crank.
And guess what? They are made out of the same batch of 5140 chrome moly steel with the same machining tolerances.
So do you think that your 1940's dated aircraft engine can out perform todays quality? Think again.
Remember what happened to Titanic????
And guess what? They are made out of the same batch of 5140 chrome moly steel with the same machining tolerances.
So do you think that your 1940's dated aircraft engine can out perform todays quality? Think again.
Remember what happened to Titanic????
It is interesting that from time to time very efficient and powerful well proven car engines are converted for aircraft. Porshe developed and certified their 3.0 litre 250 odd hp with new duel ignition and crankshaft. Put a gearbox on it and was sold as an option on Cessna and Mooney about 10 years ago. Few sold because the fuel consuption was no better than the 'old inefficient' ones, weighed as much, cost as much and was more complex. Had to do 5000 rpm instead of 2500 and then be geared down.Soon dissappeared. Likewise Toyota developed their 4.0 litre v8 ( a supurb light and powerful engine) for aviaton but never marketed it for the same reason. Car engines are not designed to run at more than about 30% power for more than brief periods, hence the cooling issues when running at high power in aircraft. Boats may be different as plenty of cold water is available. The old air cooled low revving high torque pushrod 2 valve engines that we have used for the last 40 or 50years are simply very good at what they do. But a bit if modern ignition and fuel injection would seem overdue
Capt Wally
I can relate to that every way.
Forget about tacho time, how about the good old gear switch?
Every aircraft owners best friend. " Just dump the gear 20 nm out( my old boss used to say) it will save the engines, no worries".
Hey, it is legal!
Forget about tacho time, how about the good old gear switch?
Every aircraft owners best friend. " Just dump the gear 20 nm out( my old boss used to say) it will save the engines, no worries".
Hey, it is legal!
I do not know if you remember the Vickers Vimmy replica that flew all the way from England to Australia with god knows how many stops on the way due to speed but made it to Bankstown with two (again) V8 454 Chevrolet truck engines fitted. Low revving engines with no problems at all. I have seen internals of several Lyc/Con engines many times and they are no different to internals of most high performance automotive engines.
I would like you to come and look at some of the crankshafts that i work with. They are in a 7000 hp top fuel drag race engines that run on pure alcohol with a shot of nitro fuel to top it off at a conservative 9500rpm. I think they are exposed to a "little more load" than your IGSO 540 crank.
And guess what? They are made out of the same batch of 5140 chrome moly steel with the same machining tolerances.
And guess what? They are made out of the same batch of 5140 chrome moly steel with the same machining tolerances.
Ultralights
That's a mighty small propellor on that engine, and so many blades to dress too.
Last edited by Peter Fanelli; 14th May 2008 at 13:29.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah 'sms777' I recall the same being asked of me to lower the 'dunlops' a tad before the normal extension, say 30 miles out & enjoy the almost free ride!
I think some of the main differences from aero engines to auto engines is the largish capacity (360 cubes for just 4 pots for Eg) & the low revving designs that made them last. Remember that at around 2400 rpm for most of it's life an aero engine would be doing about half the work/wear to a small capacity high revving auto engine. These metal parts are in constant contact with each other (via a thin film of that slippery stuff) & if they are doing it twice as much (as in auto engines) then their bound to wear out quicker or present problems prematurely. Like it's been said, would an auto engine be able to sustain 75% pwr for most of it's life say 2000 hrs?, doubt it somehow.
Auto engines produce rapid peak power mostly at & for brief intervals where as aero engines produce there high power almost all the time.
Horses for courses, i wouldn't wany an aero engine in my car, slug of an old thing it would be & I also wouldn't want an auto engine in my plane 'cause where would ya put the accelerator pedal?
CW
I think some of the main differences from aero engines to auto engines is the largish capacity (360 cubes for just 4 pots for Eg) & the low revving designs that made them last. Remember that at around 2400 rpm for most of it's life an aero engine would be doing about half the work/wear to a small capacity high revving auto engine. These metal parts are in constant contact with each other (via a thin film of that slippery stuff) & if they are doing it twice as much (as in auto engines) then their bound to wear out quicker or present problems prematurely. Like it's been said, would an auto engine be able to sustain 75% pwr for most of it's life say 2000 hrs?, doubt it somehow.
Auto engines produce rapid peak power mostly at & for brief intervals where as aero engines produce there high power almost all the time.
Horses for courses, i wouldn't wany an aero engine in my car, slug of an old thing it would be & I also wouldn't want an auto engine in my plane 'cause where would ya put the accelerator pedal?
CW
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why dont we see more rotary engines aircraft? plenty of power, very smooth, light weight for their output, and with a 3:1 difference in the crank shaft/rotr speed, they would be turning relatively slow. 3000 rpm crank speed =1000 rpm rotor speed. barely above idle. and rotary engines become very efficient when at a constant RPM
not only that, the inherent reliability, when 1 rotor blows, the engine will still produce 50% power.
not only that, the inherent reliability, when 1 rotor blows, the engine will still produce 50% power.
Now THIS is an engine!
flytheengine.*************/2007/10/largest-lycoming.html
Those who think such things as variable valve timing are new high tech stuff should read the third paragraph.
OK well I guess the new owners of pprune have some reason to censor that link, you'll have to add the http:// and fill in ************* yourself.
Ok, well how about you have to add blog and spot without the and in the middle and .com to make the above link work.
Damn this net censorship in pprune is getting old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_R-7755
Those who think such things as variable valve timing are new high tech stuff should read the third paragraph.
OK well I guess the new owners of pprune have some reason to censor that link, you'll have to add the http:// and fill in ************* yourself.
Ok, well how about you have to add blog and spot without the and in the middle and .com to make the above link work.
Damn this net censorship in pprune is getting old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_R-7755
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'ultralights' am not too sure why rotary engines aren't used in planes, but if a rotor did 'blow' in a twin rotor design I think you will find that the loss of power assuming it would still run at all would be far greater than 50%. That goes for any multi cylinder combustion engines. You see the resultant drag from the non power producing parts would slow down the operation of the good rotor by friction/drag alone not too mention possible out of balance issues. Still yr correct they are a smooth operating engine but never really took off (no pun intended) because they where quite thirsty for their power output & the seals on the rotors in the original designs where of concern as well. Just what I recall about them during my apprentice days.
CW
CW
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have a rotary powered car, a nice old rx7, the engine did 330,000 km before it failed, and when it did, it was a result of the housing liner, the chomium/steel part wearing through, once this happened, pieces of the liner seperated and destroyed all the tip seals of the rotor, this happened when i was in Newcastle, the engine still provided enough power to drive to southern sydney, at freeway speeds, and easily kept up with traffic when i reached syd, the advantage of when it fails, is that id destroyed all the tip seals which stopped the rotor compressing its air/fuel charge, which allowed to spin relatively freely. so even when the engine has lost 1 rotor it still provides substantial power, enough to get you out of trouble if it fails in flight, well, better than a complete loss of power anyway.
the only adverse effect of the rotor failing was a constant missing sound from the engine, it was still balanced, no unusual vibrations, just a little higher fuel consumption.
there are quite a few RV aircraft flying in the US, and i know of 1 in OZ, i just wish there were more of them. especially now wih the Renisis rotary engine being more powerful again than the old engine, and 20% lighter.
the only adverse effect of the rotor failing was a constant missing sound from the engine, it was still balanced, no unusual vibrations, just a little higher fuel consumption.
there are quite a few RV aircraft flying in the US, and i know of 1 in OZ, i just wish there were more of them. especially now wih the Renisis rotary engine being more powerful again than the old engine, and 20% lighter.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't help noticing the Sting crash ATSB report comment in FSA. Two died due to a crankshaft failure on the Rotax.
Report mentions no fault metallurgical or otherwise. Any one with more info on the cause of failure?
Is this just a really light duty design?
I hear it is a 1500 hour replacement item? Is this true?
What is the history of crank failures in Lyc/Contis?
sc
Report mentions no fault metallurgical or otherwise. Any one with more info on the cause of failure?
Is this just a really light duty design?
I hear it is a 1500 hour replacement item? Is this true?
What is the history of crank failures in Lyc/Contis?
sc
wondering if any of you pilots with experience can tell a few tales about your favourite engine
Been sitting behind the Continental IO520-B in the FTDK for just over 600 hrs - about 89,000 nm!
That's equivalent to 4 times around the world - along the equator! Kind of staggering when you look at it in those terms.
Hasn't missed a beat - just purrs along!
Dr
