Joe Patterson Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 I read about Jack Morison (Sport Aviation 11-2003)putting a Supercharged V-6 into an E-Racer, in the article they made mention of an overheating problem "excessive radiant heat in the engine compartment" seems the exaust manifolds were getting too hot. Anyone know anything about this guy or the aircraft. Where is that V-6, I sure would like to see it. Actually the article is confusing to me..........They siad he flew it to Osh in 2002, and some where else in the article he yanked it out in 1998 and replaced it with a Supercharged Lyc IO-540. Weight Issue Someone is South Africa added some length to the nose end of a CozyM IV, and changed the shape of the nose to make it a bit more pointed( I like the way it looks), but it gave him enough room to put the battery up front(counter-balance, offset the weight of the supercharger is my thought) , I am wondering . I know about V-6's and V-8's(I know Very little bout aircraft engines) are there any other reasons not to use a Chevy V-6 or V-8 on a Cozy Mark IV???????????? Signed, Lost and Searching joe Patterson E-Mail: Joseph@TheNativeSpirit.net Quote Joseph@TheNativeSpirit.Net I am Building a Jo-Z IV StarShip. What Do YOU Want?
Jim Sower Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 ...Supercharged V-6 into an E-Racer, in the article they made mention of an overheating problem... Haven't heard about your guy. Some years ago (like 10) Shirl Dickey (who designed the E-Racer) was working on his 66 Buick Aluminum V8 (the design engine) and going crazy with vibration problems. Tried everything and nothing worked. He had stub exhaust pipes coming out of the cowl and the exhaust pulses were blowing back into the prop and causing the vibration. He changed to 4-into-1 headers that departed the cowl at a shallow angle (with extractor pipes). Worked wonderful. Immediately entered one of the RACE events and the pipes set fire to the fuselage sides in the engine compartment late in the race (Dickey is the undisputed canard record holder for forced landings). He could have killed Jeanna Yeager (Dick R's girl friend) who was flying with him. If someone did the same thing with a supercharged V6 he has a problem. Shirl's incident was pretty highly publicized and most certainly everyone in the E-Racer community knew about it. How did this guy miss out and do that stunt again? ...are there any other reasons not to use a Chevy V-6 or V-8 on a Cozy Mark IV... Weigh the engine with all the accessories and cooling system, etc. Compare to O-360. Velocitys are designed around heavier (O-540) engines so thare's a number of V6 and v8 Velocitys. Quote ...Destiny's Plaything...
dust Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Welllllllllllllll, i am using stock front end and am putting two batteries up front to counter balance my tsio360a and cs prop. making the nose more pointed wouldn't really make a difference there. Just to put in pointed lead balast for solo flyiny, he he he enjoy the build mike Quote maker wood dust and shavings - foam and fiberglass dust and one day a cozy will pop out, enjoying the build i can be reached at http://www.canardcommunity.com/
Joe Patterson Posted January 14, 2004 Author Posted January 14, 2004 I had not heard about the "Shirl Dickey Fire".........but I am kinda new to Aviation. Shirl Dickey helped Jack try to figure out why it was having heating problems. actually came down and spent a week trying to get to the problem. The article I read , said Jack had the V-6 in it at OSH. He later took it out and put a Supercharged IO-540, giving him 340 hp/ Power loading of 6.59lbs per Hp/ Sea Level climb of 300 fpm.............I do NOT need that kind of power. I think maybe, (even though I know nothing about aircraft engines) i should look into Supercharging some kind of 180 hp Cont or Lyc. Quote Joseph@TheNativeSpirit.Net I am Building a Jo-Z IV StarShip. What Do YOU Want?
dust Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 just a word turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo turbo enjoy the build mike Quote maker wood dust and shavings - foam and fiberglass dust and one day a cozy will pop out, enjoying the build i can be reached at http://www.canardcommunity.com/
Joe Patterson Posted January 14, 2004 Author Posted January 14, 2004 ------------------------------- Mike wrote: my tsio360a and cs prop ------------------------------- Mike .I wish I knew what this meant,......But I don't. I do know that "cs prop" is constant speed prop. and......The part about the nose being a little different just made it lookuh....what is the word........ah yes."Sexier" Quote Joseph@TheNativeSpirit.Net I am Building a Jo-Z IV StarShip. What Do YOU Want?
Joe Patterson Posted January 14, 2004 Author Posted January 14, 2004 well here I go.................overstepping the level of my knowledge. but, what is the difference other than supercharge sounds "sexier". One hooks to the exaust. One runs off a belt. Hmm...turbo?????????// you say................... Quote Joseph@TheNativeSpirit.Net I am Building a Jo-Z IV StarShip. What Do YOU Want?
dust Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 ok a supercharger takes nothing but horsepower to run, drive the belt. tsio t=turbocharged s=i forget i=i forget o= horozontally opposed 360 = 360 cubic inch hp of mine = 210. A turbo requires some hp but it also recovers hp lost in exhaust. The reason to turbo or super charge in an airplane is air at altitude. As you go up the air thins and you lose hp in a normally aspirated engine, one that just sucks air. in a turbo normalizing situation you can keep sea level air to the engine to a designed for altitude, 8,000, 12,000, 18,000, 25,000 feet. because the air is thinner the plane will go faster that the airspeed indicator indicated that it is. So ifin you can keep full power too 15000 feet and your airspeed indicator reads 200 mph, you are going ??? 240 or so, anyone have an e6b handy? enjoy the build Mike Quote maker wood dust and shavings - foam and fiberglass dust and one day a cozy will pop out, enjoying the build i can be reached at http://www.canardcommunity.com/
Jim Sower Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 ...Shirl Dickey helped Jack try to figure out why it was having heating problems... Shirl Dickey knows EXACTLY why it was having heating problems. The same reason Shirl had heating problems for fifteen years!! You put the engine in the back seat, and you can't cool the $*(&%&& I saw an E-Racer at OSH a while back that had an O-540 or something of the sort, and it flew nice (engine was mounted aft of the spar). I think E-Racer had one of those ... I think they call it a "design defect". One of those really dynamite ideas that just didn't quite work out. As for extra power: All the 13Bs are running at around 5500 - 6000 rpm with a 2.1:1 PSRU. They get a good honest 160-180 hp NA (perhaps 190-200 with "street porting). I wanted 200-225 with street porting and was pretty much resigned to turbo, even knowing that there was no way to reject all that heat or load enough fuel to get anywhere. Then the guy says "... Jim, if you want 25% more power, why not just run the %&*(^)& thing at 7500 rpm?...". DAMN!!! Why didn't I think of that?! As we speak, Tracy is working on a 6-planet PSRU with a 2.83:1 ratio. 7500 rpm ==> 2650 at the prop, and street ported 180+ hp becomes 220+ hp. And then, there's the Renisys engine that comes at you with 220@6000:) ... Jim S. Quote ...Destiny's Plaything...
No4 Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 I'm guessing a hot exhaust/ pulsing exhaust/ vibration could be a problem in any turbo/supercharged engine. I believe there are chevy engines with aluminium blocks and heads which weigh as little as 300 lbs, capable of well over 400hp. Turbocharging is more fuel efficient than supercharging, but supercharging has it's advantages. Listed below are companies dealing in Ford/GM aero conversions http://www.beltedair.com/products.htm http://www.team-38.com/ http://northwest-aero.com/ JONES CUSTOM AIRCRAFT SERVICES PO Box 157 Laurelton, PA 17835 717-922-4877 sjonesfly@aol.com LIGHTNING ENGINES 4099 Brick Church Pike Whites Creek, TN 37189 615-865-1802 615-865-9164 (Fax Aviation Enterprises State: TN Tel: 615/865-1802 Fax: 615/865-9164 Quote The Coconut King
CBarber Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Velocity has two models now. The XL (eXtra Large...now that is creative marketing <g>) which usually uses the 260 - 300 hp Lyc and the SE (Standard Elite with elite denoting gull wing doors) which israted for 160 hp to 200+ hp. It is my understanding that, other than a larger craft, the XL was developed to take the larger engine as the larger engine is difficult to mount on the SE. I look for the collective to enlighten me on the Chevy issue. It was my understanding that many auto engines usually do not have strong enough componants to withstand the continued higher rpms needed for aviation use, thus internal parts would often fail. To use in aviation, many internal parts would have to be upgraded. Plus, they were usually too heavy. Not looking for a debate (ok, I am lawyer, maybe I am <g>), just to furter my education. TIA. Chris Quote Christopher Barber Velocity SE/FG w/yoke. Zoom, zoom, zoom. www.LoneStarVelocity.com Live with Passion...
No4 Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Hi Chris, The standard small block Chevy, sits in a 2 tonne heavy car such as a Camaro and is capable of launching it 100 mph in say, 20 seconds. Any auto engine is constantly accelerating and decellerating throughout it's rev range in urban traffic, and then expected to work just as well cruising along at 70 mph. An aircraft engine can be given a severe beating in a trainer or military operation. But a Cozy for instance, on a long range X-country could be set for take off power, then 75% cruise power, then the descent and landing power. Most engines which run continously at 75% power will never exceed their temperature or torque limitations. From my experience of driving long distance trucks and operating machinery such as generators, as long as the filters and lubricants we're maintained there was never a problem. I suggest the de-rating concept as used in turboprop and turbofan/jet engines. Some are designed to produce 1200hp, but the operator sets maximum power at 1000hp, resulting in a 6000 hour period between ovehaul. Firstly chose a strong engine which is capable of more horsepower than you require, and one that is commonly modified. For example the small block Chevy. But it could be a Subaru, Mazda, Nissan, Ford etc. Using the 400 cu in aluminium block and heads, chose a racing crank, rods, pistons, and camshaft. Heat treat the engine, and use the finest gaskets, filters and seals. Make the cooling , electrical, ignition systems immaculate for the worst case scenario. With a turbocharger this engine could maintain over 500 hp at 20,000 feet. The engine will be rated to rev to 7500 rpm, so set your rev limiter for 5500 rpm, If it is rated to 15 psi boost, set your boost to 10 psi. Thus this engine designed to haul a NASCAR around Daytona at 200mph, at 50% of its maximum power, will be hauling your Cozy around at 200mph. It should never come close to exceeding it's torque, temperature, or pressure limitations. Of course you could set an override switch or a gate in the throttle to give you the full noise if you got in trouble and urgently required power. The big jets have a TOGA button (Take off go around) which deselects cruise power and allows full thrust if the throttles are opened. A full blown race engine will cost you a mint, but a good strong 300hp motor would be less expensive than a new or rebuilt Lyco/Conti. Did you know 99% of lawyers give the others a bad name? Only kidding.. Cheers Quote The Coconut King
John Slade Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Jim Said: I wanted 200-225 with street porting and was pretty much resigned to turbo, even knowing that there was no way to reject all that heat or load enough fuel to get anywhere. Then the guy says "... Jim, if you want 25% more power, why not just run the %&*(^)& thing at 7500 rpm?...". Jim, You know, of course, that power is directly proportional to heat and fuel. Don't matter how you get the power, you make the heat and use the fuel. Running the engine at 7500rpm doesnt buy you anything over a turbo except, perhaps, less weight and a shorter TBO. Quote I can be reached on the "other" forum http://canardaviationforum.dmt.net
marbleturtle Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 ... yes, but with a turbo clogging the exhaust, less of that heat flies out the tail pipe!!! I researched the small block idea. I saw a picture somewhere of a Long EZ with a small block V8... anyone know where that was? Another question would be, could you get a small block V8 that is light enough, but has enough power at 2700 RPM to not require a PSRU? The small block V8's generate so much torque, that I think you could get the required HP at that low of an RPM. John, I still think the positives of the TURBO outweigh the negatives, but heat retention from the exhaust is one of those negatives! Quote This ain't rocket surgery!
Jim Sower Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Originally posted by John Slade Running the engine at 7500rpm doesnt buy you anything over a turbo except, perhaps, less weight and a shorter TBO. It's true that increasing rpm/power by 25% would also increase heat rejection requirements by the same amount. Attaining the same increment in power with a turbo would cost more in heat rejection. Doing the job with rpm, I'd be saving all the turbo overhead. The folks on the Mazda list have pretty much determined that the first 5" of boost (with the heat and fuel burn that 5" brings with it) get you back to the hp you had before you installed the turbo. The next 20" buys you all the increased power (also at the price of fuel burn and heat rejection). Soooooo, if I do it with rpm instead of turbo, I save the turbo overhead (which I believe is considerable). I get the power at a lower price in fuel burn and heat rejection, but I don't have the muffling and exhaust taming and I don't get to normalize my power at altitude. Turbo normalizing at higher (than 10k) altitudes is real iffy with a fixed pitch prop anyway, so I haven't lost a whole lot. Anyway, it's a way to go .... Jim S. Quote ...Destiny's Plaything...
CBarber Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Thanks for the info. ....and, as I have said, there are only three lawyer jokes...the rest are true stories. Chris Quote Christopher Barber Velocity SE/FG w/yoke. Zoom, zoom, zoom. www.LoneStarVelocity.com Live with Passion...
Jim Sower Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Originally posted by marbleturtle I saw a picture somewhere of a Long EZ with a small block V8... anyone know where that was? Another question would be, could you get a small block V8 that is light enough, but has enough power at 2700 RPM to not require a PSRU? I think there is one out on the left coast. A Ford 351 Cleveland IIRC. I believe it IS direct drive and competes in the RACE events. Look up the RACE results and you'll see what he can do. I don't have any particulars (not even sure of engine make) but it is all in past issues of CSA newsletters. Check their index. Quote ...Destiny's Plaything...
cncdoc Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 I too was considering a non-turbo, non supercharged (supercharging has the advantage in spooling up and low end power, not really advantageous in aircraft) 13B. But from the reports I seen and HEARD.....the rotary unmuffled makes quite a lot of noise, too much to leave unmuffled. I am still trying to armchair quarterback my own team on this one. The turbo sufficiently quiets the beast while adding power. But it's an expensive muffler.. Now you got intercooling, wastegating and more precise tuning (to avoid the deadly detonation) and a little more engine compartment heat. Still kicking it around, but Im going to ceramic coat everything to minimize heat buildups and look into that deal where you put some blades around the prop extension and make the cowling open around them like a ducted fan to suck air through the engine compartment. Im sure a couple of horsepower could be put to use in such a way. Still, mild street porting and no turbo will make me have to muffle! Decisions, decisions. Earplugs for everyone!!!!! I got it! No. maybe not. back to work... Quote Back to building... #618 Cozy MK IV My Cozy web pages, courtesy: Rick Maddy... WN9G
Joe Patterson Posted January 14, 2004 Author Posted January 14, 2004 Having never seen or used either turbo/supercharged anything, I am UNFAMILIAR with these beasts. I have heard mention of them while hangar flying at our local airport. I have no information about the fuel useage. I was under the impression that the same amount of fuel was getting pushed9or sucked ) into the intake, JUST WITH MORE AIR ADDED. Again,...............I have risen to the point of my Incompetence. I will need to find some information online about fuel useage, before persuing this on my engine. % HP at Altitude.........Is what I wanted . Our Airfield is at 8,500..........and I want to fly in the Mountains , with some power. Joe Joseph@TheNativeSpirit.net Quote Joseph@TheNativeSpirit.Net I am Building a Jo-Z IV StarShip. What Do YOU Want?
marbleturtle Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 The short KISSy version of how a turbo works is... Engines have an optimum Fuel/Air mixture ratio for generating power (doesn't matter what that is right now). Normally aspirated (ie: no forced air intake) engines suck air in with every cycle of turning pistons (or rotors ). The fuel is mixed with air, hopefully at optimum mixture for the conditions and kablooie! Power stroke. Now if you take that same engine and you use forced induction (turbo, supercharger, air intake pointed into the wind, etc) more air is forced into the same space than is sucked in through normal aspiration. To the larger volume of air in the cylinder (rotor!), you add more fuel to keep a good air/fuel mixture and viola! Bigger kablooie... More power, same engine size. Things get more complicated with detonation (squished air and gas that KABLOOIE have a premature explosion problem). Also different applications have different concerns: 1. A supercharger is an airpump driven by an accessory belt... not used as much as turbochargers since its one more belt to break. Also more effective at generating torque at low RPM rather than higher RPMs. 2. A turbocharger is an airpump driven by exhaust gasses. One big metal pinwheel in the exhaust system uses the pressure of the exhaust gases leaving the engine to spin up. The turbine in the exhaust is connected to a shaft which is a connected to a big metal pinwheel in the air intake system. The tubine in the air intake is spun by the turbine in the exhaust which in the end forces air into the engine. The biggest issue with a Turbo is that clogging up the exhaust system with a bunch of metal parts causes heat retention. The hot exhaust gases which normally just fly out the exhaust now spiral around the added plumbing under pressure before leaving. Turbos and exhaust plumbing get hotter than non-turbo engines. 3. Forced ram air intakes... never seen one on a plane. My Yamaha R1 has it though. Its basically an intake system pointed forward to get the benefit of all that blowing relative wind. The faster I go, the more air getting forced down the throat of my engine. It actually makes about 20 more HP at speed verses standing still. The downside is rain, ice, dust, Highway Patrol, bugs, soccer balls... anything that could get forced into the system from the airstream that would clog the filter or keep the engine from going squish kablooie. Well... I hope that helps some. It gets more complicated, but nothing that can't be overcome with a little extra work. At 8500 feet, I think the air is thin enough that a turbo will offer great performance gains. My $0.02. Quote This ain't rocket surgery!
cncdoc Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 I was just in Silver City NM the first of December visiting some friends. There sure was a lot of hills and valleys and it seemed like everyone was at least 4000 to 6000 ASL. So I can understand the desire for SL performance at 8500+. There are numerous sites with information about turbo chargers and superchargers. For details about the theory and the particular model (roots vs centrifugal) I would peruse one of the more technical (not trying to sell you) sites. The idea is that 1. There is a perfect mixture of fuel to air that will make the most power. 2. The more of this mixture you can get into your combustion chamber, the more power you will have. 3. There will always be a small amount of burnt gases in the combustion chamber which will not burn, the less of these gases allowed,(more valves, headers, turbo charging, exhaust porting) the more "perfect mixture" you can force into the combustion chamber = even more power. 4. Carburetors use the velocity enhancing effect of a venturi to suck the fuel from the bowl and mix it with the incoming air. There is no timing aspect and predetermined jet sizes govern mixture at above idle speeds. Turbos and Superchargers don't go well with carbs as the mixture under pressure is a long way from the valves and combustion chamber. Some times the intake manifold becomes a combustion chamber. Enter fuel injection. throttle body FI is located at the same place as the carb with the same limitations as the carb when it comes to coupling with a turbo (or SC). Newer TBI out performs most carbs because the mixture is easier to control. Port Injection has become quite popular because the fuel injection spray can be timed electronically with the opening of the valve and the air forced through the port at high velocity helps the mix become more even and go further into the combustion chamber. This = more power. Direct combustion chamber injection isn't as common in gas engines, but it is used mainly in diesel engines. 5. Turbo chargers have 2 turbines (centrifugal blade type) the exhaust gases turn one and, sealed off on the other end of the shaft, the other turbine is pumping air into the intake system. Advantages: At high RPM the turbo gives more power than it uses and is more economical (and quiets certain engines)Can boost power at high altitudes. Disadvantages: Low rpm, low power. Cost. has to be matched to EFI system and timing. Needs cool air (compressing heats air, hot air is less dense, less air to mix with fuel, weak mixture = less power) 6. Supercharger. Belt driven (usually roots type but also centrifugal vane type for high rpm boost) Pump that forces air into the intake system. Advantages: No wait for boost. Flat power curve for energy used. No exhaust stuff to worry about (turbo bearings). Disadvantages: Same as the turbo except low power at low RPM. Cost more and heavier. So, the amount of air forced into the engine isn't important. It's the amount of clean mix that makes it into the combustion chamber that gives the power. Spark timing and valve (or port timing in a rotary) are very important to getting the most out of a turbo or SC engine. It's not just a piece you bolt on, but it is a whole modification to the ignition, timing and induction/exhaust system that makes it work. One more thing. V8s V6s other auto engines: Are quite reliable, but (and this is my opinion) have the same weaknesses as reciprocating aircraft engines. Many moving parts, high rpms (in auto engines to attain high HP) piston changing directions many times every second. All engines develope heat, but most auto engines are liquid cooled and are heavier than their airborne cousins. If you can find an engine that turns about 2800 RPM (as fast as you should ever turn a normal prop) and developes about 180 to 200 HP and burns about 9 or 10 gallons an hour and weighs less than 350 lbs.......then go for it (and let us all know how you did it) but generally most auto engines find their HP high up the RPM range. Have you ever ran your car engine at 5000 to 6000 RPM? At 70 mph most vehicles are between 2700 and 3500 RPM. So imagine running a small block V8 5500 RPM everywhere you go. You also have to have a reduction unit to reduce the RPMs to something the prop can use. So, that's why many don't go that way. But, some engines, like the rotary, don't mind going 6000 rpm all day, and there is 3 moving parts, nothing changes direction and it is small and light. This is an over-simplification of the theory involved, I didn't get into turbo-charged and turbo-normalized either (this post is long enough) but I hope it helped a little to explain what walls you run into when you think of alternative powered aircraft. Kevin Quote Back to building... #618 Cozy MK IV My Cozy web pages, courtesy: Rick Maddy... WN9G
LargePrime Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 I am going to go out on a limb here and say... No electronic fuel injection system is timed to the opening of the port. Certianly none i know of. If there is one please point a reference to it. Turbo's should give an efficency improvment of about 3-6%. Superchargers are used on cars due to turbo lag. Superchargers have no lag. Superchargers on an aircraft just dont make sense. A turbo is FREE POWER. Remember your 200 HP Engine makes 200 HP of exhaust. Tapping into that to runn a turbo just makes sense. The problem with turbo heat is RADIANT heat. Simple shielding would eliminate 80% of the problem. Quote We know who you are...
John Slade Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 Simple shielding would eliminate 80% of the problem Funny you should mention that. I built my turbo shielding today. I started with the stock head shield, cut away the back and attached a 6 inch oval shaped tube of stainless steel essentially extending the heat shield to the cowl exit. The 2 inch exhaust pipe inside ends 3 inches back from the end of the shield. This "should" dump the turbo heat overboard, while also sucking cool air in through the NACA and heat exchangers. I'm hoping it'll work. Pictures will be on my web site in a few days. Quote I can be reached on the "other" forum http://canardaviationforum.dmt.net
cncdoc Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 Why yes, almost all EFI systems use the crankshaft position sensor which indicates TDC and strangely enough, or should I say, more importantly, the position of the ports. Because the rotary engine ports correspond to valve timing in a recip engine, the crankshaft position sensor is the timing point used by the EFI computer to tell the injectors when to release and in some cases, how long to allow flow. As the RPM increases, the on / off state of the injector becomes very close, so it's important that there is enough pressure behind it to effect a timed release. There is a whole discussion of it here:http://www.yawpower.com/dectech.html It basically covers most of what I wrote above. Timing in a rotary is where the ports start and end. But, you knew that. Quote Back to building... #618 Cozy MK IV My Cozy web pages, courtesy: Rick Maddy... WN9G
LargePrime Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 I know of no EFI systems that use the crank sensor as an input to the flow Pulse width Modulation. Could you point to any referance that says that the Fuel injector PWM function concerns itself with the port opening event. Quote We know who you are...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.