Canard Community Forum  

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

View Poll Results: Which engine are you using, installing or planning on?
Continental 2 1.64%
Deltahawk 7 5.74%
Jet 2 1.64%
Lycoming 31 25.41%
Rotary 48 39.34%
Subaru 8 6.56%
Other Diesel 5 4.10%
Undecided 16 13.11%
Other Automotive 1 0.82%
LS1 V8... 405 HP 1 0.82%
Jabiru 5100 1 0.82%
Voters: 122. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-15-2004, 11:28 AM
dgrobinson dgrobinson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: kirkland, wa
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shrike
aside from Dusties' Ukranian voting, I am floored at the vast % of people going with the rotary. I knew it was popular - just not that popular - with all the growing pains and all.
.
By the time I get to building a plane, about three years from now, the Renesis will be worked out and available. It seems to me that simplicity will win out.
__________________
Dan De Nieuwbé
  #32  
Old 12-15-2004, 12:46 PM
Nathan Gifford Nathan Gifford is offline
Nathan Gifford
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tickfaw, LA
Posts: 897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
...what happened to the voting, where did all of my support go to?
Probably too many Dutch on the site. Cert engines are expensive to purchase, maintain, and overhaul. Their primary advantage is reliable power.

I agree with your observation that rotaries are not the vast majority of experimental installations. However, rotaries do appear to be gaining ground or at the very least interest for 200-250 hp range.

Both rotaries and subis have been around for over 10 years. That's a heck of advantage as far as development goes in non-cert world. Reliability seems to be improving and that will certainly temp people to install a non-cert engine.
  #33  
Old 12-15-2004, 06:42 PM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,963
Default

my continental was 7000 with all accessories and gaurenteed for 1 year after start in plane and has 800 left to standard tbo
__________________
Enjoy the build,njut av byggandet, godere il costruire, nyd bygningen, geniesse den Bau, apolafse tin kataskevi, disfrute la construcción, curta a construção, Pidä hauskaa rakentamisen parissa, bouw lekker,uživaj grade?inaslajdaites postroikoi, geniet die bou
dust

maker of wood, fiberglass, foam dust, metal bits and one day a Cozy will pop out and swiftly whisk me from meeting old friends and family to adventures throughout the world
  #34  
Old 12-16-2004, 12:18 AM
MSires's Avatar
MSires MSires is offline
Cozy MkIV #1348
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Jacksonville, IL
Posts: 302
Default Deltahawk 1st choice, XP-360 is my backup

I should probably add that my vote for DeltaHawk is conditional. If I'm not happy with the state of their engine when (notice I didn't say if, the confidence of someone who doesn't even have plans yet ) I need the engine to proceed, the XP-360 is my backup plan. They have a TurboNormalized version 'coming soon' as well, which should also be a good match to the Cozy.

I did fill out and send in the license agreement for my Christmas present today though! Major decision over.....
  #35  
Old 12-16-2004, 01:04 AM
CBarber's Avatar
CBarber CBarber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 802
Default

Congrats, welcome to the asylum.


All the best,

Chris
__________________
Chris Barber
www.LoneStarVelocity.com
Houston, Texas
  #36  
Old 12-16-2004, 01:06 AM
pdcoleman's Avatar
pdcoleman pdcoleman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Pinehurst, NC
Posts: 107
Default

We are all experimenter types. It all comes down to faith in ourselves and faith in others on what our engine choice is. A poorly implemented auto convert is no worse than a poorly implemented certified engine. Arguments can be raised on either side.

Excluding peripheral equipment, a piston engine has more parts that can fail than a rotory. Failure in peripheral equipment is a key. If one goes modifying peripherals of a certified engine than he is no better off than one doing a conversion. I think the basic block integrity of the rotary is better than that of recipicating piston engines. But this is marginal compared to peripheral integrity.

Back in the 80s I used take my boat from Newport, RI to Fort Lauderdale, FL for the winter. Every other year the oiler cooler would break(three times) approaching Beaufort, SC. It was probably time on engine rather than location(I think). All three failures were cracks in the oil line near the brazed intersection(hot side) of the cold water tank. After the third failure Yanmar engineers from Japan actually meet me at the docks in Florida. They poured through my logs and took detailed notes. Unfortunetly they never told me what was happening they just paid for some of my misfortune. The ex now has the boat so I don't know anything more.

I think the morel of the story is to build very robust peripheral systems for your engine package. Use high quality components and test each one to make sure they reach your requirements. Blindly following feelings or what appears to be a competent supplier can be dangerous. Remember the bell curve(gaussian distribution). What if you are the one that receives a part thats at the edge of the curve.
  #37  
Old 12-16-2004, 01:30 AM
shrike's Avatar
shrike shrike is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Rockwall, Tx
Posts: 149
Default

when I was a young teen, I had one of these. Even had little red led lights for the spark plugs and a wiorking distributor to boot. I remember it was a blast to assemble. I think some of you might even get a kick out of it. I remember it was about 1 foot tall. the gear shifter is the on/ off switch

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName=WDVW
  #38  
Old 12-16-2004, 08:41 AM
John Slade's Avatar
John Slade John Slade is offline
Flying TurboRotaryCozyIV
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: KWST
Posts: 3,836
Default

Quote:
build very robust peripheral systems for your engine package. Use high quality components and test each one to make sure they reach your requirements.
Yes, plus... install redundancy on critical systems wherever possible, and protect the hoses and connections from vibration fatigue.

I was even thinking last night how it would be possible to have a redundant oil system. The trouble is that redundancy adds complexity, more failure modes and weight. For oil you could have 2 way valves at the inlet and outlet and a second oil cooling system with it's own pump. Same for coolant. This would only add maybe an extra 50 lbs.

Quote:
The ex now has the boat
Me too. And the house, and the <insert asset name here>.
  #39  
Old 12-16-2004, 11:02 AM
Nathan Gifford Nathan Gifford is offline
Nathan Gifford
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tickfaw, LA
Posts: 897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdcoleman
A poorly implemented auto convert is no worse than a poorly implemented certified engine. Arguments can be raised on either side.
That's true. However, the certified a/c engine started out as a a/c engine. That means its entire design philosophy was to provide power in a aircraft or marsh boat after it can't fly anymore. That means the manufacturer knows its parts are going to be used in aircraft, and hopefully built accordingly.

Automotive engines are built for cars. Lately the manufacturers have been very concerned about reliability and automotive engines are performing quite well in this regard. I don't think anyone would even remotely think of putting in 1970 era Detroit piston in an aircraft, but engines made in the 1990s or later are a different matter.

You are always going to have to show care about which parts you use in autoconversion engine both at installation and maintenance. There is no telling what the manufacturers will do with engine parts since they are expecting them to be used where the air is thick not thin and failures require a tow truck and not the NTSB. It would be a bummer to findout that some engineer figured out that by changing the design of a component such as an evaporator core, will save them big bucks but might cause problems when its used to cool engine oil. You can't really fuss at them either, because you ain't their market.

As long as you recognize the risks, develop plans to reduce or eliminate them autoconversion can work OK. If you are not willing to do this, I would recommend staying with certified engine.
  #40  
Old 12-16-2004, 12:31 PM
Chanler Chanler is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ankeny, Iowa
Posts: 83
Default

Yeah! I'm the only one looking at a jet so far. A British company (link's at home, sorry) that makes micro turbines is looking at making a 300hp/600 lb thrust turbine. That'd be the perfect size and I'm keenly interested, provided its reliable and effecient enough.

My other choices would be the Innodyn turboprop, then a Lycoming.
  #41  
Old 12-16-2004, 12:48 PM
tnt's Avatar
tnt tnt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 1,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chanler
My other choices would be the Innodyn turboprop...
Have you considered how turboprop installations stick out much further than the recips they replace and what that would mean to your maximum pitch on rotation or touchdown?






By the way, this motor is available for sale here

Last edited by tnt : 12-16-2004 at 02:00 PM.
  #42  
Old 12-16-2004, 02:36 PM
MSires's Avatar
MSires MSires is offline
Cozy MkIV #1348
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Jacksonville, IL
Posts: 302
Default

I could be wrong (it's happened once or twice), but I thought the main reason for the forward extension on most piston->turbine front conversions was to keep the CG range about the same (especially not move aft) with the lighter turbine hanging out front. In a rear mounted pusher configuration, I think the lighter weight would be an advantage - it would push the CG forward.
  #43  
Old 12-16-2004, 02:59 PM
Craigbeee Craigbeee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Frunt Raynj , CO.
Posts: 25
Default LOM

One engine I don't see here is the LOM. Already an a/c engine, excellent rep, and the small "frontal" area gets more air to that pusher prop. It is rather long, however. Would this put the prop too far back? CG too far aft?
  #44  
Old 12-16-2004, 04:27 PM
Clutch Cargo's Avatar
Clutch Cargo Clutch Cargo is offline
w/ Spinner and Paddlefoot
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cape Coral, FL
Posts: 602
Default round n' round..

The saying "What comes around, goes around" has taken on new meaning for me here.
I have been in my project for about a year now and have been on 3 forums. This subject (engines) has been cussed and discussed by some of the best. I will say that the participants here are looking at it objectively instead of accusing "sacrilege!" and running the other way.

The bottom line always seems to end up something like this:
1. To get the low RPM torque/HP to drive a prop, you need an engine with large displacement and low weight. An aircraft engine cools with air and is designed to run at prop-turning speeds.
2. An automobile engine doesn't develope the Torque/HP needed at low rpm unless it too, is of large displacement. Large displacement auto/truck engines are VERY heavy.
3. A speed reducer is needed to use a light auto engine that will produce the HP needed at higher rpm. However most auto engines need modification to run at those higher rpm for extended periods of time.
4. Deisels would be perfect, but they have to be built heavy because of the intrinsic destructive power of the combustion and the vibration present. Also, deisel fuel gels at high altitude and or low temps. An additive such as prist has to be added to deisel or you have buy treated Jet A.
5. Air cooled engines have expansion/contraction problems which cannot be mapped. (Why do you think motorcycle manufacturers went with liquid cooled engines?). Add ons for aircraft engines may add power, but take away durability unless given in small doses.
6. The rotary IMHO has the best of all worlds, in that it can deliver the HP at high rpm without a problem, can be modified without tearing up valves etc.
and has less weight than it's recip cousins. However, the redrive and cooling systems add complexity.
7. Turbine engines are cool and do everything well except drink fuel conservatively. A redrive would have to be added to use a prop...weight...complexity..but without economy.
Me? I'm going for the BIG RUBBER BAND!!
  #45  
Old 12-16-2004, 04:44 PM
tnt's Avatar
tnt tnt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 1,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by interestedbutconfused
I could be wrong (it's happened once or twice), but I thought the main reason for the forward extension on most piston->turbine front conversions was to keep the CG range about the same.
That's right. You want to retain the same CG range that the design currently has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by interestedbutconfused
In a rear mounted pusher configuration, I think the lighter weight would be an advantage - it would push the CG forward.
Having overall less weight would be an advantage. But pushing the CG foreward by simply installing a light motor in the same location is bad. That would suggest today's configuration is significantly tail-heavy. Or that you want to make the airplane more nose-heavy. Neither is true. Unless you really wanted a big lawn dart, you want to retain the same CG range that the design currently has.
Closed Thread


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 07:22 AM.


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