Canard Community Forum  

Go Back   Canard Community Forum > Firewall Backward and Forward
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-12-2006, 10:14 PM
Jurgen Jurgen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 10
Default Engines and prices for COZY?

So ive been snooping around a lot recently. One thing ive found out is the Lycoming 360 is the standard engine of choice for the Cozy, while a 320 is also possible it doesn't seem like it gives enough of an oomph. Of couse I was interested in the rotary engines since I love mazdas and RX7s, but I dunno how well it would work in a plane. Seems a bit risky and too much hassle to get it installed. Not to mention mogas isn't really offered at airport and those rotaries aren't very full effecient, only 21mpg in a car, let alone a plane.

Problem with the 360/320 is they cost a ton!!! At least from what Ive been able to gather, 15k+, and thats for a used bastard! On top of that the gas mileage is still not too hot for gas that costs $4 a gallon... And what does it cost to overhaul them, 15k again!!? Anyone been able to scrounge a lyco 360 for cheaper then 15k?

I was also looking at the deltahawk diesel engines, they look a bit spiffy. 7gal/hr at 65% power compared to 10 for a lyco(according to deltahawk) and jet fuel A costs the same here in new york compared to 100LL. And the 32k price =( Or 26k fo the 160hp which has even better mpg! What do you guys think of that engine compared to getting a used lyco? Think its cheaper in the long run?

Anyways, basically Whats a good engine for a scrounger like me to get for a cozy?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-12-2006, 10:17 PM
Nathan Gifford Nathan Gifford is offline
Nathan Gifford
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tickfaw, LA
Posts: 897
Default

From what I read here, you can run mogas in a Lycoming if it has the low compression pistons.
__________________
Nathan Gifford
Tickfaw, LA USA
Cozy Mk IV Plans Set 1330
Better Still --> Chapter 9
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-12-2006, 10:27 PM
Chairboy's Avatar
Chairboy Chairboy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Springfield, OR
Posts: 92
Default

Don't forget auto conversions. There are Cozy's flying with Rotaries, Subarus, etc. There aren't any firewall back solutions quite yet, but if you follow in someone elses footsteps, you can save a lot of adaptation time.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-12-2006, 10:39 PM
Jurgen Jurgen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairboy
Don't forget auto conversions. There are Cozy's flying with Rotaries, Subarus, etc. There aren't any firewall back solutions quite yet, but if you follow in someone elses footsteps, you can save a lot of adaptation time.
Rotaries aren't too fuel effecient though, and Ive heard there are problems with the turbos which also happen to be required for high altitude. There was one firewall solution afaik for the rotaries though for a cozy, cost about 1.5k I think.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-12-2006, 11:03 PM
CBarber's Avatar
CBarber CBarber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 802
Default

Uh, fuel effeciency is VERY relative. The rotary may or may not be as efficient as other engines in our uses....but, they are NOT a fuel hog. They just may not be the MOST fuel friendly. However, this is only ONE consideration. Heck, I doubt most of y'all drive the most fuel efficient cars. With your line of logic (forgive me for taking a leap of logic here myself), how dare you not drive the most efficient engine in your car. I can be pompous here as I do drive one of the most fuel efficient cars on the road.... a Jetta Diesel (which I also run on biodiesel.....flippen' the bird to OPEC one tank at a time . The new diesels are even enviro friendly) getting right around 40 mpg. Much will depend on how you fly as well as your individual install. I was at a rotary engine gathering yesterday in North Texas and spoke to two of the rotary guru's, Tracy Crook and Ed Anderson who state their fuel burns are not an issue of primary concern. They fly aggressivly, they burn mor fuel, they fly slower, they burn less....also, they usually use mogas, which is usually cheaper, even if not available at most airports. There was a lenthy discussion on this very subject on this very forum a week or two ago which should provide a much more balanced debate.....I admit my biased as we hope to have first start of our rotary in the next several weeks. I applaud your desire to share knowledge, but we must be careful not to spook folks with partial information unless we acknowlede the degree of facts. In that vain, take eveything I say with a grain of salt.....I always hope to be helpful, but am painfully aware I can be wrong.........and believe it or not, I can also be right (just don't ask Jana for verification of that last statement)

Same with the turbos. It seems as if it may not be turbos that are the issue, but the turbos that have been attempted so far in our applications (even John latest failure MAY have had contributing factors outside the turbo.....partially cloged fuel something, IIRC). Again, I am biase as we plan to turbo our Velocity to normalize at altitude. FWIW.

All the best,

Chris
__________________
Chris Barber
www.LoneStarVelocity.com
Houston, Texas
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-12-2006, 11:13 PM
John Slade's Avatar
John Slade John Slade is offline
Flying TurboRotaryCozyIV
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: KWST
Posts: 3,836
Default

My advice would be to totally forget about choosing an engine (or avionics) until you have the airframe almost complete. Just build and watch. I think we'll have much better information about subarus, rotaries and diesels in 2 or 3 years when you're ready to choose.

Yes. Rotaries have problems with turbos. I can vouch for this after blowing up three (count 'em) turbos on my Cozy. However, and it's a big however, this DOES NOT mean that a rotary can't be sucessfully and safely turbocharged. All it proves is that the stock turbo can't handle the turbine speeds at altitude. It goes way off the top of the map, overspeeds and looses the turbine wheel. Mistral had the same experience. In general, the stock turbo isnt built for the punishment. In a short while I'll be able to report how well a Turbonetics T04 turbo performs under the same circumstances. I'm confident it'll do the job very well.

As for fuel burn - the jury's still out on this one too. I'll have accurate numbers soon. So far the indications are that fuel burn is quite reasonable and, with at least local (less than 400 miles each way) flights done on $2.45 mogas rather than $4+ 100LL the savings are quite significant.

More rotary Cozys will be taking to the skies over the next couple of years. There are two which have passed inspection and are waiting for first flight any day now. At least six more well on the way toward completion.

Until then, "Watchful Waiting" is the best approach.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-12-2006, 11:19 PM
Jurgen Jurgen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 10
Default

Hrmm well my two biggest concerns where the limited availability of mogas at airports and the fact that I might build something in that I shouldnt have if I pick a rotary.

I guess ill just wait for the plumbing/engine stuff when I get the airframe finished and after I take my classes in fluid mechanics and turbomachinery :P
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-12-2006, 11:24 PM
John Slade's Avatar
John Slade John Slade is offline
Flying TurboRotaryCozyIV
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: KWST
Posts: 3,836
Default

Quote:
John latest failure MAY have had contributing factors outside the turbo.....
You mean like me not being gentle with it?

Based on the change with the replacement stock turbo I'm running now, I'm beginning to think the old one (rebuilt in Australia by Max Heywood) was leaking small amounts of oil into intake from day one. The bearings collapsed after about 10 hours of running, mostly on the ground. The current (stock) turbo is behaving so well that, if I didnt have a T04 on the bench and didnt want high altitude boost, I might even be tempted to keep it.

People who are planning to "normalize" might keep in mind that 4 or 5 PSI of boost on take-off isn't going to hurt a thing, and it sure makes the departure a lot more "interesting". Chris - you're in Texas - better start practicing you're very best "Yahooooo" cowboy shout.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-12-2006, 11:27 PM
Jurgen Jurgen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 10
Default

Hrmm anybody ever try getting a Rotary to run on Jet A or 100LL? Im guessing 100LL wouldn't be any good because of the lead, but Jet A?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-12-2006, 11:29 PM
John Slade's Avatar
John Slade John Slade is offline
Flying TurboRotaryCozyIV
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: KWST
Posts: 3,836
Default

By the way, on fuel burn, here's a report from Charlie England posted just 30 minutes ago to the fly rotary list:

Informal fuel flow comparison on the way to Pecan Plantation from Slobovia: Tracy burned around 22.5 gal (he can give exact figure); I burned 21.8 in my 160 hp Lyc powered RV-4. Loose formation flight, with me sloppily flying wing. This was over 3.5 hrs, between cow tipping & 5500ft altitudes varying due to conditions, at very low (for an RV) power settings. Note that I am not afraid to lean a Lyc, so many Lyc drivers might have burned more than Tracy on this flight.

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-13-2006, 12:44 AM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Slade
By the way, on fuel burn, here's a report from Charlie England posted just 30 minutes ago to the fly rotary list:

Informal fuel flow comparison on the way to Pecan Plantation from Slobovia: Tracy burned around 22.5 gal (he can give exact figure); I burned 21.8 in my 160 hp Lyc powered RV-4. Loose formation flight, with me sloppily flying wing. This was over 3.5 hrs, between cow tipping & 5500ft altitudes varying due to conditions, at very low (for an RV) power settings. Note that I am not afraid to lean a Lyc, so many Lyc drivers might have burned more than Tracy on this flight.

After extensive research, these numbers seem very realistic. This low power setting is also the regime where a diesel, due to its absence of a throttle and accompanying pumping losses, would show its biggest efficiency advantage, to the tune of about 20-30%, compared to a gas engine. Wide open there are no big differences in efficiency, you burn fuel to produce horses. A typical Lyconsaurus would occupy the middle ground, flanked by the diesel at minus 5-10% and the rotary at plus 5-10%. From there it's a matter of fuel pricing in various countries. The diesel market in the US is set to explode with the introduction of clean diesel in the fall of 2006. If this happens, DeltaHawk is doomed, or will be forced to play the certified game, as Mistral seems to be doing; who's going to pay US30k plus, when there'll be plenty of salvaged car engines to go around for US$3k or less?
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me

Last edited by Kumaros : 02-13-2006 at 05:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-13-2006, 03:38 AM
karoliina's Avatar
karoliina karoliina is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumaros
If this happens, DeltaHawk is doomed, or will be forced to play the certified game, as Mistral seems to be doing; who's going to pay US30k plus, when there'll be plenty of salvaged car engines to go around?
I would be really interested in certified Deltahawk allthough there seems to be even more interesting diesel engines coming from Wankel-Ag and Zoche. Especially Zoche was quite intriguing - small
little lightweight (same weight as Lycosaurus) engine, JET-A1/multifuel, 300hp...
The downside seems to be 42 liters per hour JET-A1 fuel consumption which is not very low. Horsepowers are not coming for free.
__________________
http://www.karoliinasalminen.com/blog
DISCLAIMER: This message was written in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
--- Plans #000 at concepting stage ---
JAA-PPL(A) with NF & RT/E, UPL. WT9-Dynamic, TL-96 Star, Zephyr 2000, C152, C172 (& waiting the crashed diesel planes to get fixed )
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-13-2006, 06:10 PM
MarbleTurtle's Avatar
MarbleTurtle MarbleTurtle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dalton, GA.
Posts: 1,344
Default

The power to weight ratios of diesel engines coming out of automobiles are still too low at the moment. The 2 cycle Deltahawk has no competition yet from the automotive arena.

I've followed Zoeche for a while, but I don't think I'll see anything from them except more CAD drawings.
__________________
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-13-2006, 08:15 PM
CBarber's Avatar
CBarber CBarber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurgen
Hrmm anybody ever try getting a Rotary to run on Jet A or 100LL? Im guessing 100LL wouldn't be any good because of the lead, but Jet A?
If I understand correctly, Rotaries DO and have run on 100LL avgas. It is just that due to the cost, most would prefer to run on mogas. However, mogas has limited availability at most airports. But, IIRC, you can blend the two fuels in the same tank, thus you can start our with mogas at your home field and if you need to fuel up on a trip you can just add avgas. I think you may have some plug issues with one...but I am having a middle age moment as to the details.

As to Jet A, it seems I remember someone working on this, but I do not remember any details. There was a Hydrogen rotary, but I think it was only a prototype from Mazda.

All the best,

Chris
__________________
Chris Barber
www.LoneStarVelocity.com
Houston, Texas
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-13-2006, 08:40 PM
levansic's Avatar
levansic levansic is offline
Back to square one
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tehachapi, California
Posts: 499
Default

I've heard a rumor that I'm having a hard time believing. A student that works in my lab now, had a co-op with Bosch, and was telling me about a major retooling that they are going to undertake this year for a big technology change-over that will be industry-wide in 2007. Bosch supplies injectors to near 80% of the auto industry now, so they're probably the the impetus for the industry-wide change.

Anyway, what he was saying about this change-over is that the new injection systems will provide near 45% more power for the same amount of fuel or the same amount of power using 45% less fuel. This fuel consumption reduction seems unbelievable to me right now, but with the advances in direct-injection gasoline engines (e.g. VW/Audi FSI), maybe there is something to this rumor. Time will tell.

I'll worry about this when I finish my airframe.

-- Len
__________________
-- Len Evansic, Cozy Mk. IV Plans #1283
Do you need a customized Flightline Chair?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.