 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
psm(at)ATT.NET
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:47 am Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
 |
|
At 06:13 AM 10/8/2007, you wrote:
| Quote: | Personally, about the only thing I can see as a problem with an
auto-conversion is if you're rally trying to push it past it's
limits to get power out of it.
|
Hi Andy,
Your discussion of suitability for aircraft use seems to focus only
on reliability. I agree this is an important aspect of engine choice
for your airplane, but there are many other issues to consider. When
you put it all together, I believe airplane use is the most difficult
environment for any engine. That leaves me thinking an engine
designed for airplane use is going to exceed the value of a similar
technology engine designed for a simpler environment.
Besides the reliability issue (which indeed should be at the top of
the list), there is:
1. Engine weight. Any additional pound robs the airplane of
performance in virtually all areas. It certainly impacts useful
load, climb performance, and probably airspeed.
2. Availability of fuel and spare parts while on cross country
trips. It is easy to get repairs or suitable fuel for aircraft
engines at any airport with "Services". The auto fuel desirable for
auto engines is rarely available at remote airports, and auto engine
spare parts are a bigger problem.
3. Extra engine systems. Many auto conversions require water
cooling systems and PSRUs. I believe purpose built airplane engines
never include these features. Extra parts means extra failure
possibilities and extra weight.
4. Propeller choices. Many propeller suppliers can easily provide a
nearly ideal product for airplane engines used in common performance
envelopes. When using a conversion, the builder must go through all
the calculations and experimentation to find a propeller that works
well. I am not sure if the torque curve of an auto engine matches
well with the needs of a propeller, but an airplane engine certainly
is designed to meet this requirement.
I'm sure there are lots of other issues to consider. This doesn't
mean I don't approve of conversion engine use in airplanes. It just
means I think the additional issues and problems might make the
savings in initial cost a somewhat false economy. For those who want
to enjoy flying and high performance, I think the purpose built
airplane engine is the best choice.
Paul
XL fuselage
Jab -3300
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ashontz
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
Can you easily get Jabiru parts at any airport? I'd have to imagine you'd probably wait awhile to even get in a Lycoming part.
As far as weight goes, I'd never consider using something that weighs too much.
Agreed, there are a lot of factors involved with choice of airplane engines, not just reliability. Personally, I'd find it extremely inconvenient to break down anywhere with any airplane engine. 9 times out of 10 when you hear about someone with a breakdown (provided they landed ok), it's a week and a half long debacle before the plane is home and they've had a look-see inside.
Regarding fuel, from my understanding, you could more easily operate an auto-engine on 100LL than you can the other way around, in fact, you can't the other way around unless you want to have some serious valve problems. A guy in our local EAA chapter has his Lycoming rated for auto fuel use, but still runs 100LL in it from time to time with no problems. He's a chemical engineer and comes at the problem from a very technical perspective.
I'm not a big fan on water-cooled engines for airplanes, but they do exist and have even been used on WWII fighter planes.
For a full perspective on the pros and cons and viability of aircraft engines I recommend everyone read Converting Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft.
http://www.amazon.com/Converting-Auto-Engines-Experimental-Aircraft/dp/0966145712
Excellent book to keep in the bathroom. This guy doesn't push one way or the other or for any particular type of engine, he just gives a really detailed description of how auto engines can be converted as well and safety, reliability, how to, pros and cons, etc... It's not a "I'm right, you're wrong book", it just gives some pretty convincing detailed, technical arguments for auto-engines for use in airplanes.
| psm(at)ATT.NET wrote: | At 06:13 AM 10/8/2007, you wrote:
| Quote: | Personally, about the only thing I can see as a problem with an
auto-conversion is if you're rally trying to push it past it's
limits to get power out of it.
|
Hi Andy,
Your discussion of suitability for aircraft use seems to focus only
on reliability. I agree this is an important aspect of engine choice
for your airplane, but there are many other issues to consider. When
you put it all together, I believe airplane use is the most difficult
environment for any engine. That leaves me thinking an engine
designed for airplane use is going to exceed the value of a similar
technology engine designed for a simpler environment.
Besides the reliability issue (which indeed should be at the top of
the list), there is:
1. Engine weight. Any additional pound robs the airplane of
performance in virtually all areas. It certainly impacts useful
load, climb performance, and probably airspeed.
2. Availability of fuel and spare parts while on cross country
trips. It is easy to get repairs or suitable fuel for aircraft
engines at any airport with "Services". The auto fuel desirable for
auto engines is rarely available at remote airports, and auto engine
spare parts are a bigger problem.
3. Extra engine systems. Many auto conversions require water
cooling systems and PSRUs. I believe purpose built airplane engines
never include these features. Extra parts means extra failure
possibilities and extra weight.
4. Propeller choices. Many propeller suppliers can easily provide a
nearly ideal product for airplane engines used in common performance
envelopes. When using a conversion, the builder must go through all
the calculations and experimentation to find a propeller that works
well. I am not sure if the torque curve of an auto engine matches
well with the needs of a propeller, but an airplane engine certainly
is designed to meet this requirement.
I'm sure there are lots of other issues to consider. This doesn't
mean I don't approve of conversion engine use in airplanes. It just
means I think the additional issues and problems might make the
savings in initial cost a somewhat false economy. For those who want
to enjoy flying and high performance, I think the purpose built
airplane engine is the best choice.
Paul
XL fuselage
Jab -3300 |
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gig Giacona
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:08 am Post subject: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
1. The Corvair converted is heavier than a Rotax ot Jabiru but about the same as an O-200 or O-235.
2. I plan to burn 100LL in my Corvair but I have the option of running Mogas. Most of the parts I would have to replace away from my home field can be purchased at Auto-Zone. Where are you going to get Jab, Rotax, Lyc or Cont. parts when you are at (enter small field name here)?
3. The Rotax has both.
4. There are a wide range of props to choose from and when I call Sensinich (sp?) and told them what I was putting it on they asked two questions and told me where to send the check.
| psm(at)ATT.NET wrote: | Your discussion of suitability for aircraft use seems to focus only
on reliability. I agree this is an important aspect of engine choice
for your airplane, but there are many other issues to consider. When
you put it all together, I believe airplane use is the most difficult
environment for any engine. That leaves me thinking an engine
designed for airplane use is going to exceed the value of a similar
technology engine designed for a simpler environment.
Besides the reliability issue (which indeed should be at the top of
the list), there is:
1. Engine weight. Any additional pound robs the airplane of
performance in virtually all areas. It certainly impacts useful
load, climb performance, and probably airspeed.
2. Availability of fuel and spare parts while on cross country
trips. It is easy to get repairs or suitable fuel for aircraft
engines at any airport with "Services". The auto fuel desirable for
auto engines is rarely available at remote airports, and auto engine
spare parts are a bigger problem.
3. Extra engine systems. Many auto conversions require water
cooling systems and PSRUs. I believe purpose built airplane engines
never include these features. Extra parts means extra failure
possibilities and extra weight.
4. Propeller choices. Many propeller suppliers can easily provide a
nearly ideal product for airplane engines used in common performance
envelopes. When using a conversion, the builder must go through all
the calculations and experimentation to find a propeller that works
well. I am not sure if the torque curve of an auto engine matches
well with the needs of a propeller, but an airplane engine certainly
is designed to meet this requirement.
I'm sure there are lots of other issues to consider. This doesn't
mean I don't approve of conversion engine use in airplanes. It just
means I think the additional issues and problems might make the
savings in initial cost a somewhat false economy. For those who want
to enjoy flying and high performance, I think the purpose built
airplane engine is the best choice.
Paul
XL fuselage
Jab -3300 |
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psm(at)ATT.NET
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
Hi Andy,
I guess for me the bottom line is this: If auto conversions are such
a great thing to use in airplanes, then why don't the airplane
manufacturers (Cessna, Piper, etc.) use them?
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 07:48 AM 10/8/2007, you wrote:
| Quote: | For a full perspective on the pros and cons and viability of
aircraft engines I recommend everyone read Converting Auto Engines
for Experimental Aircraft.
http://www.amazon.com/Converting-Auto-Engines-Experimental-Aircraft/dp/0966145712
Excellent book to keep in the bathroom. This guy doesn't push one
way or the other or for any particular type of engine, he just gives
a really detailed description of how auto engines can be converted
as well and safety, reliability, how to, pros and cons, etc... It's
not a "I'm right, you're wrong book", it just gives some pretty
convincing detailed, technical arguments for auto-engines for use in airplanes.
|
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:53 am Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
| Quote: | If auto conversions are such a great thing to use in airplanes, then why
don't the airplane manufacturers (Cessna, Piper, etc.) use them?
|
They do. Cessna and Diamond use the Thielert Diesels.
Would you fly behind (or in front of) a Jabiru? Because Cessna etc don't use
Jabiru either.
But if certified aircraft are your standard then why are you building an
experimental?
-- Craig
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
larry(at)macsmachine.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:28 pm Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
Gig,
Id ask Zenith if there were any areas of the 701 that might need
beefing up in using a Corvair. The Corvairs ability to pull the 701
past its Vne would give me the most concern. Being able to so easily fly
into the aircrafts restricted maneuvering speed is a worry Id share
with Zenith before committing this engine to the 701.
The availability of auto fuel is not an issue with the Subaru or the
Corvair as either can burn 100LL. The Corvair is the best alternative to
the Jab 3300, no question, provided its on the right aircraft. Spare
parts are a lesser concern with Auto Zone or O'Reilly's nearby. Try to
find a Lyc cylinder locally that's affordable.
Most people dont know that the Subaru originally was originally
designed to be an aircraft engine and when the aircraft market softened,
it was remarketed as a car engine.
Coolant systems are not a deficit item; otherwise cars and formerly
noisy air-cooled motorcycles today would have evolved to air-cooling.
The auto engine has a harder run environment, is quieter and controls
its heat to a better degree. Aircraft engines are becoming more
efficient because of the addition of coolant systems that were common in
the 30s and 40s. Think Merlin, Rolls, Allison etc, and recently Rotax
and a host of others carry coolant. I believe radiators will ultimately
become the norm and air-cooling the exception.
The need to conserve fuel, reduce noise and get more hours on an engine
is what is bringing on the current transition to coolant systems. Their
reliability in cars is taken for granted with proper maintenance. Gyros
use the Subaru with good economy, reliability at slower speeds, heavier
loading and harsher environments.
The current expensive air-cooled engines are expensive because they have
such a large temperature range in which to work. Their high cost and
life span are controlled by low- volume production and necessarily
larger tolerance parts closest to the fire
The purpose-built engine is being produced as we speak and increasingly
it is liquid-cooled.
respectfully,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Gig Giacona wrote:
| Quote: |
1. The Corvair converted is heavier than a Rotax ot Jabiru but about the same as an O-200 or O-235.
2. I plan to burn 100LL in my Corvair but I have the option of running Mogas. Most of the parts I would have to replace away from my home field can be purchased at Auto-Zone. Where are you going to get Jab, Rotax, Lyc or Cont. parts when you are at (enter small field name here)?
3. The Rotax has both.
4. There are a wide range of props to choose from and when I call Sensinich (sp?) and told them what I was putting it on they asked two questions and told me where to send the check.
psm(at)ATT.NET wrote:
> Your discussion of suitability for aircraft use seems to focus only
> on reliability. I agree this is an important aspect of engine choice
> for your airplane, but there are many other issues to consider. When
> you put it all together, I believe airplane use is the most difficult
> environment for any engine. That leaves me thinking an engine
> designed for airplane use is going to exceed the value of a similar
> technology engine designed for a simpler environment.
>
> Besides the reliability issue (which indeed should be at the top of
> the list), there is:
> 1. Engine weight. Any additional pound robs the airplane of
> performance in virtually all areas. It certainly impacts useful
> load, climb performance, and probably airspeed.
> 2. Availability of fuel and spare parts while on cross country
> trips. It is easy to get repairs or suitable fuel for aircraft
> engines at any airport with "Services". The auto fuel desirable for
> auto engines is rarely available at remote airports, and auto engine
> spare parts are a bigger problem.
> 3. Extra engine systems. Many auto conversions require water
> cooling systems and PSRUs. I believe purpose built airplane engines
> never include these features. Extra parts means extra failure
> possibilities and extra weight.
> 4. Propeller choices. Many propeller suppliers can easily provide a
> nearly ideal product for airplane engines used in common performance
> envelopes. When using a conversion, the builder must go through all
> the calculations and experimentation to find a propeller that works
> well. I am not sure if the torque curve of an auto engine matches
> well with the needs of a propeller, but an airplane engine certainly
> is designed to meet this requirement.
>
> I'm sure there are lots of other issues to consider. This doesn't
> mean I don't approve of conversion engine use in airplanes. It just
> means I think the additional issues and problems might make the
> savings in initial cost a somewhat false economy. For those who want
> to enjoy flying and high performance, I think the purpose built
> airplane engine is the best choice.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
> Jab -3300
>
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138778#138778
|
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gig Giacona
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:16 pm Post subject: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
Larry,
I'm not building a 701 so I'll leave that for someone that is and just for the record neither is Paul who I was responding to. I do know that William Wynne has communicated with Zenith about the Corvair 701 he is working on.
I don't think you are really aiming the post at me but I never said (well at least not in this thread) that liquid cooling was a problem.
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gig Giacona
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
They are. Check into who actually builds the new diesel that is going into the new 172s.
The other answer is liability. I doubt you could get GM to allow one of their engines to be put into a certified aircraft. The marginal income they would make from it just wouldn't be worth it to them. They can probably pay for the liability for 1,000 car engines for what the cost of 1 aircraft engine would cost them.
It actually surprises me that they haven't sued to stop us from doing as we are.
| psm(at)ATT.NET wrote: | Hi Andy,
I guess for me the bottom line is this: If auto conversions are such
a great thing to use in airplanes, then why don't the airplane
manufacturers (Cessna, Piper, etc.) use them?
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
|
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
amyvega2005(at)earthlink.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:07 pm Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
they do, the diesel engine in the DIamond is a daimler/ CHrysler Diesel derated to 135 BHP.
the reason the compnaies do not use off the shelf auto diesel engines is the life cycle of an engine in the auto world is less than 5 years. they change the model and other componants regularly, you can't do that in commerical aircraft as the number of planes with them is small and the FAA regulations restrict flexibility in change of models. It is an ongoing problem currently with the new Diamond twin diesel, it is a d/Crysler engine, based on a 2003 model year. They descontinued that engine line last year so now they have to service two differenct engine lines under the same diesel brand in aviation.
You will see diesel aviation flourish when they create a dedicate engine core and parts line.
Does not have to do with Liability or very limited.
Juan
--
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Bolding
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 281
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
I HAVE asked Zenith !! Have reported it here on this list several times that Chris wrote back "use the Corvair,no airframe mods necessary". You certainly have to respect CG, gross weight, VNE etc etc etc. It will be a good combo ONLY if you get rabid about weight control on the engine and airframe however. If you load up on radios, instruments, upholstery, extra tanks, blah, blah it will be a 1 1/2 seat airplane.
There is a big red line on the airspeed indicator that indicates VNE, when you get close to it you pull the throttle back if you are in level flight or pull the nose up if you are decending, simple. Have done it 2000 hrs on my RV, not hard to remember.
The ONLY guy that has flown a 701/Vair has told me one of the reasons the plane is such a JOY to fly is the fact that cruise speed happens at such a low power setting that the engine is almost silent,and very smooth. He also mentioned that climb rate was very impressive.
John
Gig,
Id ask Zenith if there were any areas of the 701 that might need
beefing up in using a Corvair. The Corvairs ability to pull the 701
past its Vne would give me the most concern. Being able to so easily fly
into the aircrafts restricted maneuvering speed is a worry Id share
with Zenith before committing this engine to the 701.
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmccune
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psm(at)ATT.NET
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
oops, sorry folks. I meant to send my last post privately but failed
to inform my computer.
Please feel free to ignore my comments.
Paul
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psm(at)ATT.NET
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
Hi Craig,
Thanks for the reply. I am writing off list because I think I
already addressed the issues you raised, but apparently I wasn't very
clear in my posts.
Yes, I will fly behind a Jabiru. I didn't mean to say anything about
certification for engines. Indeed, all I said was that I felt
purpose built engines were preferable to conversions. I still feel
that way. However, even among purpose built engines there are
choices to be made. For me, the Jabiru 3300 easily comes out on
top. The fact that it isn't certified doesn't bother me a bit. It
provides the best proven performance, by far, in the plane I am building.
I realize there can be no standard performance for conversions since
each one is a bit different from the other ones. Still, if I thought
I would get better performance from any conversion I would certainly
consider it. The anecdotal information I have gathered over the years
I have been building my Zodiac indicate something like a 30 percent
speed advantage for the Jabiru over Corvair conversions. There is
also an unknown but significant weight advantage for the
Jabiru. From the information on the ZAC web site and from just plain
common sense, the Rotax seems clearly inferior to the Jabiru. It
claims only 100 hp compared to 120 or 130 from the Jabiru and has
less than 50 percent of the Jab's displacement (if I remember
correctly). It also has water cooling and PSRU which I don't want on
my plane. The certified choices all seem significantly heavier and
lower in horsepower than the Jabiru.
Once again, I don't mean to knock anyone's choice for a
conversion. There are reasons why they could easily be the best
choice for any particular builder. As with most choices, home built
airplanes just don't offer "One size fits all" solutions.
As I have clearly said in recent posts, I am building an airplane
mostly because I like to build things. I never claimed to prefer
factory built airplanes, but I do think the choices made by the
factories should rightfully be considered when making judgements over
builder's choices.
I really don't know where you got the idea that I would only consider
brands of engines and airplanes that are certified for my use. I
didn't say that.
Best regards,
Paul
XL, Jabiru, nearing completion.
At 12:52 PM 10/8/2007, you wrote:
| Quote: |
> If auto conversions are such a great thing to use in airplanes, then why
don't the airplane manufacturers (Cessna, Piper, etc.) use them?
They do. Cessna and Diamond use the Thielert Diesels.
Would you fly behind (or in front of) a Jabiru? Because Cessna etc don't use
Jabiru either.
But if certified aircraft are your standard then why are you building an
experimental?
-- Craig
|
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dougsnash(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:36 am Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
One of the PAV competitors is finding this issue with
GM. They initially got very good support from GM with
the idea of using the LS series V8 but after a
"Changing of the Guard" at GM, suddenly GM pulled
their support. The PAV manufacturer says he is in
discussions with Toyota now.
Oh well, GM's loss on this high profile project.
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch builder
NW Ontario
| Quote: | The other answer is liability. I doubt you could get
GM to allow one of their engines to be put into a
certified aircraft. The marginal income they would
make from it just wouldn't be worth it to them. They
can probably pay for the liability for 1,000 car
engines for what the cost of 1 aircraft engine would
cost them.
It actually surprises me that they haven't sued to
stop us from doing as we are.
|
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
naumuk(at)alltel.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:46 pm Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
All-
WW recommends the use of 100LL in his conversions. Therefore, the
biggest savings isn't in the weight of the engine, but the weight of the
fuel you have to drag around.
I used to flight plan at 8gph when I was part owner of a C-152/O235. All
(And recurring) burn data on a WW conversion is in the mid 5's. Figure 6 and
you're still 25% less burn than an O-200/235.
Stock tanks for an XL are 30 gal (at) 6lbs per gal. Around 50lbs of built
in dead weight for the O-235. Figure a fraction less for the O-200.
do not archive
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
---
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shilcom
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 63
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
What is PAV, Bob U.
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joemotis(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
In a message dated 10/9/2007 7:42:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, shilocom(at)mcmsys.com writes:
| Quote: | It actually surprises me that they haven't sued to
| Quote: | | stop us from doing as we are. |
|
Come out of your shell man.
On what farthest stretch of the imagination of liability do you think that GM or whomever could sue you for using a device in an situation of your own risk and peril?I.E. way the heck out of their published design parameters??
You had better not ever look at another fan belt because it might come off and smite you.
Jesus H. Farkin Christ.
Joe Motis
Do not archive
See wh [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dougsnash(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:35 am Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
NASA is running some kind of Personal Aerial Vehicle
competition kind of like an X-Prize. The idea is that
it will be a first step toward a "Jettson's" world
where we have Aerial Vehicles instead of cars.
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch Builder
NW Ontario, Canada
--- Bob Unternaehrer <shilocom(at)mcmsys.com> wrote:
[quote] What is PAV, Bob U.
---
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n85ae
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 403
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:44 am Post subject: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
Sounds like time to buy a heavy duty Kevlar Umbrella .... That plus
all the car parts flying around up there ...
Jeff
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dredmoody(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:49 am Post subject: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
|
|
You mean that there are people out there who actually don't have their own airplanes yet????
Dred
---- MacDonald Doug <dougsnash(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
NASA is running some kind of Personal Aerial Vehicle
competition kind of like an X-Prize. The idea is that
it will be a first step toward a "Jettson's" world
where we have Aerial Vehicles instead of cars.
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch Builder
NW Ontario, Canada
|
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
