Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:04 am Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

I ask myself why I am writing this and I guess the only reason is to bitch. 

  

 Lycosaur or Lycodrain.

 

This is another example of why I get so down on this whole aircraft engine thing. I don't inderstand why a company as successful as Lycoming(Market Dominator) and Continental don't get their own CNC machines and make channels in their cases for gaskets...and why they haven't done this years ago and also had it certified. 

  

 Wow, what a surprise! Again, another after market option so we can take an already extremely overpriced engine and spend more money to make it better. 

 

Then there is the nice article about Rotoway, who not only makes a wonderful Helicopter kit, but a liquid cooled engine, a transmission for it and with full Fadec system...let's not state that a internal combustion engine for a helicopter doesn't have the same requirements as what is needed for a fixed wing.

 

Looks like I have to now choose from Aero Sport or from Ly Con. 

  

 Please, no alternative engine war...just pissin in the wind and getting all wet!

 Sorry, just needed to put my one gripe for the day in. 

  

 JOhn G. 409 Do Not Archive.

  

  [quote][b]

n212pj(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:17 am Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

Actually, John, I had the same reaction when I read the two  articles.  I'm actually rooting for those with enough knowledge, skill,  perserverance and fortitude to get us engines and transmissions/PSRU's that work  and can deliver the needed power/weight ratios.  I'd pay the same amount  for such as I am now willing to pay for the older engine designs.   Unfortunately, I don't think the market is big enough to sustain such a  development investment.  Maybe it can come from a group of individuals  who are willing to get the design, development and partial testing done, then  sell the rights to a larger outfit that has enough cahonnies and backing to try  to make it work in the market.  What a great retirement project for a group  of interested engineers.  

  

 John Jessen

   40328 (just might have to resume building pretty  quick)  



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John  Gonzalez

Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:57 AM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Kitplane's article,  Ly-Con's case closed.

 

I ask myself why I am writing this and I guess the only reason is to  bitch. 

 

Lycosaur or Lycodrain.

 

This is another example  of why I get so down on this whole aircraft engine thing. I don't inderstand why  a company as successful as Lycoming(Market Dominator) and  Continental don't get their own CNC machines and make channels in  their cases for gaskets...and why they haven't done this years ago and also had  it certified. 

 

Wow, what a surprise! Again, another after market  option so we can take an already extremely overpriced engine and spend more  money to make it better. 

 

Then there is the nice article about  Rotoway, who not only makes a wonderful Helicopter kit, but a liquid cooled  engine, a transmission for it and with full Fadec system...let's not  state that a internal combustion engine for a helicopter doesn't have the same  requirements as what is needed for a fixed wing.

 

Looks like I have  to now choose from Aero Sport or from Ly Con. 

 

Please, no  alternative engine war...just pissin in the wind and getting all wet!

Sorry,  just needed to put my one gripe for the day in. 

 

JOhn G. 409 Do Not  Archive.

 

[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

[b]

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

History shows that when there is no competition in the market there is no innovation.  Throw in today’s environment of litigation and it becomes even less attractive to innovate where there is no competition.  

   

  Bring it down to the level of the guys that rebuild or put engines together and there is healthy competition.  Thus you once again see this kind of innovation.  Why would Lycoming spend the time and capital to invest in developing a process or improvement to a product that already is a fore gone conclusion in the market?  

   

  Companies like Jabiru and Rotorway have learned well the lessons of Korean companies like Hyundai.  Sure the upfront costs of developing end to end manufacturing of EVERYTHING including the tools to build a product are high, but the savings in the long run of a successful product lifecycle are more than worth it.  

   

  We are the product of a capitalist and litigious society, not a pretty thing but our own fault.  

   

Do not archive  

       

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez

 Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:57 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.  

  

  

   

I ask myself why I am writing this and I guess the only reason is to bitch. 

  

 Lycosaur or Lycodrain.

  

 This is another example of why I get so down on this whole aircraft engine thing. I don't inderstand why a company as successful as Lycoming(Market Dominator) and Continental don't get their own CNC machines and make channels in their cases for gaskets...and why they haven't done this years ago and also had it certified. 

  

 Wow, what a surprise! Again, another after market option so we can take an already extremely overpriced engine and spend more money to make it better. 

  

 Then there is the nice article about Rotoway, who not only makes a wonderful Helicopter kit, but a liquid cooled engine, a transmission for it and with full Fadec system...let's not state that a internal combustion engine for a helicopter doesn't have the same requirements as what is needed for a fixed wing.

  

 Looks like I have to now choose from Aero Sport or from Ly Con. 

  

 Please, no alternative engine war...just pissin in the wind and getting all wet!

 Sorry, just needed to put my one gripe for the day in. 

  

 JOhn G. 409 Do Not Archive.

     	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

      [quote][b]

daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

I read the same stuff.  I concur.

  

 Dave Leikam

 40496

  

 do not archive

 [quote]   ---

GenGrumpy(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

Guys,

  

 Until something big happens to the major manufacturers, we're stuck with  either the 2 major manufacturers, or somebody with not a lot of track  record.

  

 Not sure what that "big" is on when it will happen, so.......

  

 I went for Aero Sport's engine.  I am completely satisfied to date  with Bart's support and his engine.

  

 Better warranty and support than Lyc to boot.....

  

 I just hope Bart can figure out how we can run some type of ethanol, no  leaded gas in our engines in the very near future........

  

 grumpy

 N184JM

  

 do not archive

  

 In a message dated 1/4/2008 7:37:28 P.M. Central Standard Time,  daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com writes:

 [quote]   I read the same stuff.  I concur.

    

   Dave Leikam

   40496

    

   do not archive

   [quote]     ---

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

GenGrumpy(at)aol.com (GenGrumpy(at)aol.com) wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		                 Guys,

    

   Until something big happens to the major manufacturers, we're stuck with either the 2 major manufacturers, or somebody with not a lot of track record.

    

   Not sure what that "big" is on when it will happen, so.......

    

   I went for Aero Sport's engine.  I am completely satisfied to date with Bart's support and his engine.

    

   Better warranty and support than Lyc to boot.....

    

   I just hope Bart can figure out how we can run some type of ethanol, no leaded gas in our engines in the very near future........

   

 	
 Actually, the engine will run pretty well with ethanol fuel.  The obiggest problem is the rubber in seals, hoses etc. between the tank and the cylinder   ,  and If I recall correctly, the proseal in the tanks will degrade over a long period of time.  If I'm not correct on that, I hope someone will let me know!   

 Linn

 [quote]       

   grumpy

   N184JM

    

   do not archive

   

 [b]

Kearney(at)shaw.ca
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

Hi

  6nbsp;

 There are alternatives E The only question being whether or not you want to go down that road E Jan Eggenfellner 7s engines (my choice) provide C in my humble opinion C a effective C viable alternative to the state of the art 1940 7s Lycoming E 

  6nbsp;

 Cheers

  6nbsp;

 Les Kearney

  340643 

 C-GCWZ reserved



---

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:48 am Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

It is interesting how folks like to call Lycoming's engines 1940s

designs. Most of the initial versions came on the market in the mid to

late 1950s. None of them reached their current component designs until

the late 60s or early 70s. Remember that most of them carried

1000-1200 TBO when they were introduced. They are as much 1940s

designs as the small block chevy in your current Corvette or SUV. No

the main dimensions haven't changed and not a lot new has been

invented, but they HAVE been substantially refined over the years. In

fact the current oil pump design didn't arrive until 1986-87.  Sure,

they have fairly old design magnetos and fuel systems....that have

proven reliable. Tell me, how many years of reliability does your

latest Plasma or Pmag ignition have??? Oh, I forgot...no 6 cylinder P

mags. Ditto on your aftermarket fuel injection units. It is one thing

to experiment in a single seat plane or even 2 seat. But do you really

want to be experimenting hugely with your family on board?

Nothing against alternative power, but its track record is rather

short, and isn't very good. Not to change anyone's mind......just

pointing out that calling a current design IO540 a 1940s design simply

is not intellectually honest.



On Jan 6, 2008 6:17 AM, LES KEARNEY <Kearney(at)shaw.ca> wrote:

[quote] Hi



 There are alternatives. The only question being whether or not you want to

 go down that road. Jan Eggenfellner's engines (my choice) provide, in my

 humble opinion, a effective, viable alternative to the state of the art

 1940's Lycoming.



 Cheers



 Les Kearney

 #40643

 C-GCWZ reserved

 ---

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:40 am Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

I've come to view it a little differently.  I see it more as

a design of elegant simplicity.  You have a large bore engine

that requires no gear reduction.  It's air cooled, to save some

weight, but also reduce complexity and possibility of forcing

you to the ground due to a coolant leak.  Yes, the thermal

expansion and stability isn't as good, but by opening up the

tolerances a bit you can prevent some major seizures.

When looking at most of the components, they have been designed

in ways that provide great service-ability, with individually

removable cylinders that allow you to do some substantial work

without dismounting the engine.  As Kelly mentions, the use

of a magneto, and in fact TWO of them, allows you to get a little

wild and put on an Electric Ignition without committing yourself

to going out on the limb all the way and doing dual-EI systems.

So you retain the non-reliance on electricity to keep the engine

alive.  And while an electrical outage is scary if you lose

all your gauges on today's planes, since you're really not

actually flying in IMC that large a percentage of hours, it

would stink a lot more to have that outage cause you to

land in a field, or on a mountainside.  It's relatively easy

to put together a dual-battery system to keep the juice flowing,

but it's nice knowing that once you reach that stage, it's

not your engine quitting that you're worried about...just

getting to some VFR conditions.

Then when you look at some of the advances, like roller lifters,

automotive spark plug use with EI, the EI systems themselves,

and some of the minor changes along the way, it really turns

it into a little more refined design of an already really good

basic platform....one that is about as ideal for it's use as

you can find in a piston engine.

When thinking of alternatives, even alternate methods of

doing anything on a Lyc or continential, what you end up doing

if you actually are willing to have an open mind, is to look

at the list of positives and negatives.  Every new change

doesn't only have an upside, but it has a downside.  The liquid

cooling is a perfect example.  Yeah, some of the thermal

stability concepts make a TON of sense, but you really HAVE

to consider that now you have a radiator to maintain, that can

spring a leak, along with numerous hoses and clamps, and even

down to the fact that the porting within the case can end

up being a problem.  I've had cars that leaked oil into the

coolant, and vice versa....that would really be a bad situation

in an aircraft.  So when you really thoroughly explore even

the changes available to Lycomings or the alternative engines,

you find that some of the downsides are fairly big detractions

from the inherent simplicity of what has become the common

standard.  Having a single ignition system and spark plug

on some engines is also kind of a major deal, too, esp. if you

really are going to run 100LL and have plugs foul.  So for me,

and people who subscribe to the K.I.S.S. principle in lots

of applications, it really doesn't get much simpler than

that.

Now, things like the LyCon o-ring mod are some pretty simple

no-brainers that would be nice to see as additions.  Although

I've never personally had a weepy case on my couple of planes,

I can see it as a benefit, but that's something a builder can

choose to do if they want to....no big deal.  There are also

some things that would be nice to see, like perhaps some better

lubrication paths and valve lubrication designs, but as long

as we run 100LL, we kind of need some of that additional valve

clearance.  The changes that would be nice to see, are in

general, minor ones, in more external parts of the engine, so

over time they may actually happen.  But, considering that

there are lots of engines that go full-lifetime with what we

have today, I don't see those changes as a huge deal.  Remember

that an engine lifetime is TBO or 12 years (if I remember right).

If you don't fly it 166 hours per year, you can't feel bad if

after 16 years your engine doesn't make it without a rebuild...

because not flying it is inducing lots of the life-shortening

damage....and that will happen to any engine, not just

Lycomings.  If everyone flew their planes using the best

engine operation methods, and they flew them often, I think

you'd probably see some stellar reliabilities.  Turn it into

a hangar queen and don't expect so much.

Anyway, I see it as an elegantly simple design with what we

have today.  I also have to say I agree with Kelly on one

major point.....while I think it's fantastic to have people experiment,

hopefully the RV-10's that go down that alternative path aren't

looking at them as largely "family" cruising machines.  2-seat

RV's make great platforms for experimenting and testing the

reliability of these new things, but until there are some

repeatedly proven designs with hundreds of thousands of hours on

them, I'd hate to see too many children sitting in the back

seats of the plane.  For a "cargo" RV-10, I'm all for it...go

ahead and try just about anything.  A 40-hour fly-off as opposed

to a 25-hour is kind of a joke, because in one case you're taking

something that has been done many thousands of times, over and

over, and comparing it to something else that will consistently

be like being in a "Phase 1 test" situation for a few years,

if you really want to know it's reliability in an aircraft

use.

At any rate, whatever you build, get out there and put some

hours on it....that's the best way to determine reliability, and

to stretch longevity....and, have FUN!

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Kelly McMullen wrote:

[quote] 

 It is interesting how folks like to call Lycoming's engines 1940s

 designs. Most of the initial versions came on the market in the mid to

 late 1950s. None of them reached their current component designs until

 the late 60s or early 70s. Remember that most of them carried

 1000-1200 TBO when they were introduced. They are as much 1940s

 designs as the small block chevy in your current Corvette or SUV. No

 the main dimensions haven't changed and not a lot new has been

 invented, but they HAVE been substantially refined over the years. In

 fact the current oil pump design didn't arrive until 1986-87.  Sure,

 they have fairly old design magnetos and fuel systems....that have

 proven reliable. Tell me, how many years of reliability does your

 latest Plasma or Pmag ignition have??? Oh, I forgot...no 6 cylinder P

 mags. Ditto on your aftermarket fuel injection units. It is one thing

 to experiment in a single seat plane or even 2 seat. But do you really

 want to be experimenting hugely with your family on board?

 Nothing against alternative power, but its track record is rather

 short, and isn't very good. Not to change anyone's mind......just

 pointing out that calling a current design IO540 a 1940s design simply

 is not intellectually honest.

 On Jan 6, 2008 6:17 AM, LES KEARNEY <Kearney(at)shaw.ca> wrote:

> Hi

>

> There are alternatives. The only question being whether or not you want to

> go down that road. Jan Eggenfellner's engines (my choice) provide, in my

> humble opinion, a effective, viable alternative to the state of the art

> 1940's Lycoming.

>

> Cheers

>

> Les Kearney

> #40643

> C-GCWZ reserved

> ---

Kearney(at)shaw.ca
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

Hi Kelly 

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =  2urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office 2 /> 6nbsp; 

My apologies if my characterization of the IO540 seemed “not intellectually honest” E Ouch! I was simply trying to press the point that the basic design of the Lycoming is firmly rooted in the past E There have been improvements over the years but the fundamental design has not changed E  

 6nbsp; 

At KOSH this year C one engine supplier spent 20 minutes explaining to me why their IO540 was better than an out of the box Lycoming IO540 E It was all about improving lubrication and fixing problems that Lycoming could fix didn 7t want to fix because of the certification process E 6nbsp;My club AME (Canadian A 6amp;P) speaks of his high replacement rate for IO540 jugs E  

 6nbsp; 

I just don’t see the attractiveness of these engines E 6nbsp;They are old C problematic designs E 

 6nbsp; 

I believe there is there is an effective / viable alternative to “traditional” engines E My choice is he Eggenfellener engine E The nice thing about the experimental world is the discussion does not always have to be theoretical – we can actually implement our opinions as I am doing E 

 6nbsp; 

I do not claim to be an engine expert so my decision was not easy E The population of a/c owners I know is small E Out of this group C 2 have had engine failures C 1 being catastrophic E Both landed safely E My 14 years of flying a Lyc O-360 has given me a different perspective as well E I have replaced jugs over the years E This year during my annual C my AME found a cracked exhaust port on a jug that had only 500 hrs TIS E  

 6nbsp; 

I can only decide based on my experience flying an O-360 Lyc for 14 years E My view is that the only reason traditional engines are perceived to be reliable is that repetitive inspections are used to compensate for design problems E As well C when problems as identified C they are not reported as they are “maintenance issues” E 

 6nbsp; 

I believe the actual alternative engine is a far safer than the traditional engine E How many IO540’s have been built over the years – 10K C 20K? I don’t know but whatever the number C the production run as been spread over many decades and has been fraught with problems E The years past crankshaft debacle points to QA/QC problems E What assurance do we have that newer engines won’t suffer from similar design an/or prouction problems? I can’t afford to take that chance E 

 6nbsp; 

Compare the production runs of auto engines to a/c engines E Auto engine production runs can run into the hundreds of thousands in a single year E Think of the QA/QC and engineering effort that goes into these engines C the quality of the parts and the tolerances of the manufacturing process E Hands down C I am of the opinion that these engines will have a higher inherent reliability than traditional engines E Keep in mind that my engine will be a factory new engine (in fact I helped un-crate it on Thursday at the Eggenfellenr shop) E It is not a reman C it is not rebuilt C and it is not modified E  

 6nbsp; 

There are new risks I need to manage but these are reasonable E Will this engine be more or less risky than a traditional engine – I can’t say E But I will mitigate the risk reviewing each system C identifying risks and doing what I can to mitigate each risk E  

 6nbsp; 

Finally C I cringe when I hear the concept of family safety raised when discussing non traditional aircraft engines E So much so I have now created a variation on Goodwin’s Law E 

 6nbsp; 

<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =  2urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags 2 />Kearney’s Variation on Goodwin’s Law: 

 6nbsp; 

As an online discussion of experimental aircraft engines grows longer C the probability of a mentioning the safety of family members approaches one E 

 6nbsp; 

I will not expose my family C including myself C to any unreasonable risk when flying E I plan to test C check and recheck every system C electrical C mechanical etc before anyone flies in the aircraft E I will have a competent second set of eyes check my work E What does not pass muster will be corrected E 

 6nbsp; 

Cheers 

 6nbsp; 

Les Kearney 

 340643C-GCWZ (reserved)



---

phudes(at)ix.netcom.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

Les,



On Jan 6, 2008, at 10:16 AM, LES KEARNEY wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Hi Kelly



 Compare the production runs of auto engines to a/c engines. Auto  

 engine production runs can run into the hundreds of thousands in a  

 single year. Think of the QA/QC and engineering effort that goes  

 into these engines, the quality of the parts and the tolerances of  

 the manufacturing process. Hands down, I am of the opinion that  

 these engines will have a higher inherent reliability than  

 traditional engines. Keep in mind that my engine will be a factory  

 new engine (in fact I helped un-crate it on Thursday at the  

 Eggenfellenr shop). It is not a reman, it is not rebuilt, and it is  

 not modified


	




Auto engines have been designed and tested to be operated in a  

different environment than aircraft engines. They are operated a  

majority of their life at a low percentage of power at low RPMs, not  

at a high percentage of power at high RPMs.



 	  Quote: 	
		   There are new risks I need to manage but these are reasonable. Will  

 this engine be more or less risky than a traditional engine – I  

 can’t say. But I will mitigate the risk reviewing each system,  

 identifying risks and doing what I can to mitigate each risk.


	


How are you going to evaluate and mitigate the risks associated with  

the PRU and prop combo?

 	  Quote: 	
		  


	


Pete Hudes

speckter(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

I find it interesting that Superior started with the desire to build the

best modifications possible to the basic Lycoming engine.  When all said and

done, their list of modifications is not as long as you might expect.  As

Tim said it is hard to beat the total qualities of a Lycoming. Yes

improvements can be made, but I just don't see any technology that will

revolutionize the power plant.



Gary

40274 Paint shop says it is done, Yupppeeeee!



--

Kearney(at)shaw.ca
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:46 am Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

Peter

  6nbsp;

 As I mntioned in my post to Kelly C I am not an engine expert / guru / authority by any stretch E Below is an exract from Ross Farnham 7s website: http://www Esdsefi Ecom/air7 Ehtml

  6nbsp;

 Many lay people often point out that automotive engines are not designed for continuous high output applications and will blow up when installed in an aircraft E This view is a result of complete ignorance in my opinion and is not supported by any credible facts E Modern automotive engines make use of the latest advances in computer design and modeling to optimize the design of everything from port flow C port resonance tuning C combustion chamber characteristics C vibrational node analysis and mechanical stresses E Machining and metallurgy technology is far superior to the old days when the air cooled C flat engines were developed E Technology has indeed progressed on automotive engines in the last 40 years E

 

Automotive engines are routinely tested during development at full power and maximum rpm for periods of up to 1200 hours on a dynomometer E These engines must be able to withstand whatever stresses a customer might inflict on them such as flat out cruising on the autobahn or endurance racing C without failure E Manufacturer 7s limits are conservative to guarantee longevity and reliability E The engineering and capital investment that goes into a new engine release dwarfs any similar development by any piston aircraft engine manufacturer E The testing and validation methods FAR exceed those required on piston aircraft engines E In Europe C cars are routinely cruised at speeds (RPMs and load) 50-100 5 higher than what we see in North America with no ill effects in life span E This is real world C long term hard use E 

Just one example of the demonstrated real world reliability on the popular Subaru EJ22 engine was the 1989 record set by 3 Legacy 7s at an Arizona test track E These cars were run flat out for 17 days straight without failure at an average speed of over 138 mph E Similar records have been set by Saab and Chevrolet E How many people reading this article think that most aircraft engines would survive at 100 5 takeoff power for 400 hours? Subaru now offers the production 2 E5L turbo STI rated at 300 hp C With the popularity of showroom stock endurance racing in the last decade C we get to see just how good the design and engineering is on modern cars E Thousands of Hondas C Toyotas C Oldsmobiles C Chevrolets C Mitsubishis C VWs etc E are mercilessly flogged to the rev limiter at full throttle for hundreds of hours between rebuilds E A very small fraction of these ever suffer a serious failure E Aircraft use does not put this kind of cyclic stress on an engine C being a constant load C relatively low rpm situation E Most modern car engines outlast the chassis without ever being removed E This performance can be equated into lifespans of between 4000 and 8000 hours E Even operating at 75 5 of maximum power and rpm limits C it is reasonable to expect a TBO of at least 1000 hours in aircraft use E Cheers

  6nbsp;

 Les



---

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

This has turned out to be another great alternative engine war.  Anybody care to offer opinions on the best primer to use on the outside of the engine, alternative or otherwise?

do not archive



 Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)

Cell: 352-427-0285

Fax: 815-377-3694



 



On Jan 6, 2008, at 2:42 PM, LES KEARNEY wrote:

[quote]Peter

  

 As I mntioned in my post to Kelly, I am not an engine expert / guru / authority by any stretch. Below is an exract from Ross Farnham's website: http://www.sdsefi.com/air7.html

  

 Many lay people often point out that automotive engines are not designed for continuous high output applications and will blow up when installed in an aircraft. This view is a result of complete ignorance in my opinion and is not supported by any credible facts. Modern automotive engines make use of the latest advances in computer design and modeling to optimize the design of everything from port flow, port resonance tuning, combustion chamber characteristics, vibrational node analysis and mechanical stresses. Machining and metallurgy technology is far superior to the old days when the air cooled, flat engines were developed. Technology has indeed progressed on automotive engines in the last 40 years.



Automotive engines are routinely tested during development at full power and maximum rpm for periods of up to 1200 hours on a dynomometer. These engines must be able to withstand whatever stresses a customer might inflict on them such as flat out cruising on the autobahn or endurance racing, without failure. Manufacturer's limits are conservative to guarantee longevity and reliability. The engineering and capital investment that goes into a new engine release dwarfs any similar development by any piston aircraft engine manufacturer. The testing and validation methods FAR exceed those required on piston aircraft engines. In Europe, cars are routinely cruised at speeds (RPMs and load) 50-100% higher than what we see in North America with no ill effects in life span. This is real world, long term hard use.

Just one example of the demonstrated real world reliability on the popular Subaru EJ22 engine was the 1989 record set by 3 Legacy's at an Arizona test track. These cars were run flat out for 17 days straight without failure at an average speed of over 138 mph. Similar records have been set by Saab and Chevrolet. How many people reading this article think that most aircraft engines would survive at 100% takeoff power for 400 hours? Subaru now offers the production 2.5L turbo STI rated at 300 hp, With the popularity of showroom stock endurance racing in the last decade, we get to see just how good the design and engineering is on modern cars. Thousands of Hondas, Toyotas, Oldsmobiles, Chevrolets, Mitsubishis, VWs etc. are mercilessly flogged to the rev limiter at full throttle for hundreds of hours between rebuilds. A very small fraction of these ever suffer a serious failure. Aircraft use does not put this kind of cyclic stress on an engine, being a constant load, relatively low rpm situation. Most modern car engines outlast the chassis without ever being removed. This performance can be equated into lifespans of between 4000 and 8000 hours. Even operating at 75% of maximum power and rpm limits, it is reasonable to expect a TBO of at least 1000 hours in aircraft use. Cheers

  

 Les



---

Kearney(at)shaw.ca
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

Peter

  6nbsp;

 To answer your questions regarding the prop and PSRU C I will be monitoring the PSRU oil temp and 6nbsp;doing oil analysis on a regular basis E There will also be periodic inspections for oil leaks etc E 6nbsp;Anything out of the ordinary will be investigated and resolved E This is pretty much what I am doing with my Lyc O-360 E

  6nbsp;

 Cheers

  6nbsp;

 Les

 

---

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:40 pm Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

Jesse Saint wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   This has turned out to be another great alternative engine war.  Anybody 

 care to offer opinions on the best primer to use on the outside of the 

 engine, alternative or otherwise?


	


	Yellow?  



-Dj

do not archive

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

Who needs primer?  Since we're (majority...or currently all, in

the RV-10's) flying behind Lycomings, all the oil soaking the

engine should keep the rust away, right? 



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Jesse Saint wrote:

[quote] This has turned out to be another great alternative engine war.  Anybody 

 care to offer opinions on the best primer to use on the outside of the 

 engine, alternative or otherwise?

 

 do not archive

 

 Jesse Saint

 Saint Aviation, Inc.

 jesse(at)saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com>

 Cell: 352-427-0285

 Fax: 815-377-3694

 

 On Jan 6, 2008, at 2:42 PM, LES KEARNEY wrote:

 

> Peter

>  

> As I mntioned in my post to Kelly, I am not an engine expert / guru / 

> authority by any stretch. Below is an exract from Ross Farnham's 

> website: http://www.sdsefi.com/air7.html

> // 

> /Many lay people often point out that automotive engines are not 

> designed for continuous high output applications and will blow up when 

> installed in an aircraft. This view is a result of complete ignorance 

> in my opinion and is not supported by any credible facts. Modern 

> automotive engines make use of the latest advances in computer design 

> and modeling to optimize the design of everything from port flow, port 

> resonance tuning, combustion chamber characteristics, vibrational node 

> analysis and mechanical stresses. Machining and metallurgy technology 

> is far superior to the old days when the air cooled, flat engines were 

> developed. Technology has indeed progressed on automotive engines in 

> the last 40 years./

>

> /Automotive engines are routinely tested during development at full 

> power and maximum rpm for periods of up to 1200 hours on a 

> dynomometer. These engines must be able to withstand whatever stresses 

> a customer might inflict on them such as flat out cruising on the 

> autobahn or endurance racing, without failure. Manufacturer's limits 

> are conservative to guarantee longevity and reliability. The 

> engineering and capital investment that goes into a new engine release 

> dwarfs any similar development by any piston aircraft engine 

> manufacturer. The testing and validation methods FAR exceed those 

> required on piston aircraft engines. In Europe, cars are routinely 

> cruised at speeds (RPMs and load) 50-100% higher than what we see in 

> North America with no ill effects in life span. This is real world, 

> long term hard use./

>

> /Just one example of the demonstrated real world reliability on the 

> popular Subaru EJ22 engine was the 1989 record set by 3 Legacy's at an 

> Arizona test track. These cars were run flat out for 17 days straight 

> without failure at an average speed of over 138 mph. Similar records 

> have been set by Saab and Chevrolet. How many people reading this 

> article think that most aircraft engines would survive at 100% takeoff 

> power for 400 hours? Subaru now offers the production 2.5L turbo STI 

> rated at 300 hp, With the popularity of showroom stock endurance 

> racing in the last decade, we get to see just how good the design and 

> engineering is on modern cars. Thousands of Hondas, Toyotas, 

> Oldsmobiles, Chevrolets, Mitsubishis, VWs etc. are mercilessly flogged 

> to the rev limiter at full throttle for hundreds of hours between 

> rebuilds. A very small fraction of these ever suffer a serious 

> failure. Aircraft use does not put this kind of cyclic stress on an 

> engine, being a constant load, relatively low rpm situation. Most 

> modern car engines outlast the chassis without ever being removed. 

> This performance can be equated into lifespans of between 4000 and 

> 8000 hours. Even operating at 75% of maximum power and rpm limits, it 

> is reasonable to expect a TBO of at least 1000 hours in aircraft use./

>

> Cheers

>  

> Les

>

> ---

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:10 pm Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

Hi Les,

I'm afraid you are missing the point. Yes, flat air cooled engines

were designed before WWII. No, the IO540 was not.

The current, dynamically counter balanced engine dates from the late

seventies/early 80s.  Lets see...oh yeah, that is about when Subaru

came out with their H-4 design...which was really a water cooled

modification of the VW design, that dates back to, oh yeah, before

WWII.  So, design vintage is really pretty much the same. We all

naturally defend whatever choice we make. You hear a LOT more about

Lycoming problems because there are thousands of them out there. All

the so called automotive technology, really has changed little since

1970 other than ignition and fuel delivery. I think you will find that

cylinder wall machining, piston machining, cam machining etc have

changed very little. Most of the improvement was incremental for

durability, emission control and fuel economy.  Aircraft engines have

had similar improvements, you just don't hear much about them, because

they don't change the certification.

For Lycomings, very few have roller lifters. Very few have cold air

induction. Even fewer have electronic ignition. If you think it is

better, you can get Superior's investment cast cylinders. You can have

an engine shop do custom improvements, like honing the valve guides

instead of reaming. You can go with gapless rings to reduce blowby and

oil contamination. Etc. Etc. There simply is very little technology

difference beyond the electronic engine management unit. Which happens

to be one of the biggest failure modes of autos today. You would be

astounded how many ECUs get changed out in cars...whether or not they

are the real problem.

Or you can choose as you have a very proven auto engine, that has very

little experience in aircraft, with a PSRU that has even less aviation

experience. That is the beauty of experimentals...you have the right

to choose.

Then you can choose zinc chromate or epoxy primer and Continental

gold, Lyc gray or blue, Ultimate black, Mattituck red/gold, or purple

for your engine color.  And as Tim said, you get to install

radiator, engine management computer and monitor those extra systems.



On Jan 6, 2008 11:16 AM, LES KEARNEY <Kearney(at)shaw.ca> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



 Hi Kelly



 My apologies if my characterization of the IO540 seemed "not intellectually

 honest". Ouch! I was simply trying to press the point that the basic design

 of the Lycoming is firmly rooted in the past. There have been improvements

 over the years but the fundamental design has not changed.



 At KOSH this year, one engine supplier spent 20 minutes explaining to me why

 their IO540 was better than an out of the box Lycoming IO540. It was all

 about improving lubrication and fixing problems that Lycoming could fix

 didn't want to fix because of the certification process. My club AME

 (Canadian A&P) speaks of his high replacement rate for IO540 jugs.



 I just don't see the attractiveness of these engines. They are old,

 problematic designs.

wcurtis(at)nerv10.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

I agree but Penske Yellow, not that unsafe school bus Yellow;-)



William

http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

-- Dr. Suess 



------

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.

Maybe a bit more Chartreuse. 



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum