Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

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

Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:48 am Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

First the Lyc is perfectly adapted to 

  aircraft use. It's like a Alligator, may 

  be prehistoric but its design is made 

  for the mission. A "Honda" will be 

  heavier, more cooling drag, cost more 

  and in the end will NOT have better 

  economy or performance. True, read on.

   

   

  >From: "mike humphrey" 

 	  Quote: 	
		  <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net (mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net)>

Subject: Re: Honda Piston Engine

  
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  Then why did Honda buy 53% of 

Continental stock?  I believe that is 

the last % that I saw.  According to 

Honda's own press release they were 

going to use the Continental as their 

springboard.  The release of the 'Honda 

engine' was going to be in three phases: 

   
	


  >1. conventional engine based on the

 	  Quote: 	
		    Continental but with Honda 

manufacturing techniques, ie improved 

metals, air cooling, etc. 

   
	


  Mike no offense but your comments are 

based on myth and miss information. WHAT 

modern metals and materials? Really I 

have to hear this? The fact is the low 

production is what cost money. The 

"metals" used are STATE OF THE ART. There 

is nothing BETTER. Manufacturing? Well the 

detailed high precision Grade class A1 

castings are complicated x 100 than a car 

engine. The crank materials, forgings and 

QC is beyond what a car engine part 

needs.

   

  >2. was to be still Continental based but 

 	  Quote: 	
		  with EFI, EI, better pistons, 

higher TBO, 

   
	


  Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are 

you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is 

not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles 

in a car. This IDEA that there is 

something  OLD or inadequate with a 

Lycoming and Continental is ignorance. 

Car engines run around at 25% power most 

of the time. A Ly or TCM can fly along at 

75% for 2000 hours. A car engine can not 

do that. Why do race cars rebuild there 

engine ever 1/4 mile or 200 or 500 miles?

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  3. was to be 'The Honda Engine', flat 4 

and 6, all the above improvements, even 

better manufacturing techniques-more 

like auto engines, and the biggie, water 

cooled, and VERY extended TBO, no more 

air cooled engines, improved cabin 

heating ability, no CO threat at all, 

noise reduction, interchangeable auto 

parts right off of the shelf.

   
	


  Water cooling? Who wins reno air races 

every year? Big air cooled radials from 

the 40's and 50's. There is SOOOO much 

air available and we never park and run 

the engine at high power water cooling is 

a JOKE JOKE JOKE.  Yes IN A CAR, water 

cooling makes the engine mechanical noise 

quieter, yes reduces emissions due to 

tighter piston/cylinder wall clearances. 

COOLING DRAG = HUGE IN WATER COOLED  

AIRPLANES. Look at all the Subaru's and 

rotaries. There are flying R&D, test 

pilots all. They are heaver, tend to go 

slower AND/OR burn way more gas. Air 

cooling is IDEAL for aircraft. WHY. Noise 

is not an issue because with prop and 

exhaust and slip stream nose the 

clacking of the valves is a small part of 

the noise signature. When you put water 

jackets on a Lyc (Like the "cool jugs", a 

Lyc sounds like a Subaru. Emission? Not 

and issue. WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE 

RADIATORS? Well the P-51 was made around 

the engine. The P-38 Lightning? Same 

thing. Most tractor GA planes or kit 

planes are a Jury RIG of stuff radiators 

somewhere to make it work. Most under size 

the radiator and run hot. I'll  admit that 

cooling on a HOT HOT day and tight cowl 

with gross weight climbs to 8,000 feet 

might mean you have to watch CHT, but 

with time in 3 or 4 types of 

experimentals and 40 GA piston planes 

from C-152 to several turbo charged twins 

I can tell you engine management is NOT 

HARD. OH MY GOSH, THERE IS A MIXTURE 

KNOB, WHAT DO I DO? Move it about 4-5 

times a flight.

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  Doesn't that sound like exactly what all 

of us want and have complained about 

Lyco's forever?

   
	


  What complaints? I have 16,000 hours and 

made, most in jets now but spent 1000's 

and 1000's of hours behind one or two 

Lycs and they where rock solid dependable 

all going to or past TBO? 

   

  >They anticipated the TBO to be in excess 

 	  Quote: 	
		  of 10k hrs.  Instead they go after an 

even smaller market - The Honda Jet.Mike 

H 9A/8A

    
	


  Look both Honda and Bombardier tried to 

come out with engines. Honda got as far 

as a picture. Bombardier got as far as 

pictures and some specs for a few model. 

THEY WHERE HEAVY! They where expensive 

and they where better? Look when these 

engines are cheaper than a Lyc or Lyc 

clone, where I can go out and buy a BRAND 

NEW O-360 or IO-360 for $21,000 and get 

and engine as light, reliable and simple 

than I'll look at it.

   

  Bottom line all the "WATER COOL" Car 

based engines are at least several or all 

of the following:

   

  -heavier 

-More noise

-low on power 

-fuel burn same or higher than air cooling

  -more cooling drag to day (except maybe P-51)

   

  Most auto engine conversions are 100 lbs 

more. The Mazda rotary is loud. The 

  others are spinning fast are have a higher 

  pitch  noise and vibration. Different yes 

  but better? No.

   

  Auto engines advertise the peak HP as 

at near red line, but in airplanes operate 

will below peak HP. Most of the car 

engines do not get any better fuel 

consumption than a Lyc or TCM. Well 

because Lycs/TCM have a mixture control 

and usually EGT gauges. Some even run 

LOP. The AUTO engine EFI with O2 sensor 

(which last a few hours with avgas) and 

open/closed loop does nothing at high 

power settings. I'd rather have manual 

mixture control.

   

  The Lyc has:

  two cables - Mixtures and Throttle

One fuel line and a mechanical pump

Two P-leads to self powered mags

   

  So two push-pull cables, two single wires 

and one fuel line is all that is needed 

and NON requires electrical power. The 

MODERN engine needs computers and has 

one spark plug & needs  dual electric pumps, 

two batteries and blaa blaa blaa. 



  There is something elegant in a simple 

air cooled engine independant engine.

   

  Honda bought TCM because it was cheap.

  Honda engines are just 4 stroke piston 

  reciprocal "otto cycle" engines just like 

  a Lycoming. THERE IS NOTHING NEW. 

  4 valves per cylinder or water cooling is 

  NOT NEW. It has been around since the 

  20's. The Lyc does not use any of this 

  because its NOT NEEDED or desirable.



        [quote][b]

mike109g6(at)insideconnec
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

So was the Model T Ford.  It's called -  Progress.  When is the production of 100LL supposed to be stopped?   Another US manufacturer that can't keep up with times-like the auto  industry.  What kind of car do you drive?  Where is it built?   Not US, is it, I bet?  The 'issues' pointed out as to reasons against, are  simply based in conjecture.  There is absolutely no data to support:  heavier, more drag, increase cost and not better economy or performance.   Zip, Nada.  Those are not constructive arguments, only  opinions.

 With regards to that rant following, the person has  never built/flown a Full Fadec IO Lyco-it needs everything that he states that  it doesn't.

 Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But one  should leave the emotional outburst for the pulpit. What I was  trying to point out is that if US A/C engine manufacturers don't look past  today, tomorrow will make them extinct.

 I'd be the first to admit that I hate  change.  But sometimes it's necessary for survival. 

 Enough on this subject, it's like beating a dead  horse,

 Mike H

 [quote]   ---

rv7(at)b4.ca
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

On 6:45 2008-03-08 <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are

 you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is

 not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles

 in a car.


	


1/2 million miles in 2000 hours is 250 mph.  That's a pretty fast car that

you're driving for 2000 hours.  Unless you really meant "1 to 2 million

miles," in which case you're only talking 60-120mph, average, for 2000

hours.  Most cars on the road today would do well to average 40mph, let

alone 60.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Water cooling? Who wins reno air races

 every year? Big air cooled radials from

 the 40's and 50's.


	


For many years Strega and Dago Red (both P-51's) traded the checkered flag,

while Rare Bear (Bearcat), Dreadnought (Sea Fury), etc. trickled in behind.



 	  Quote: 	
		   COOLING DRAG = HUGE IN WATER COOLED

 AIRPLANES.


	


Cooling drag is huge in all airplanes.  The challenge is minimizing it. 

The P-51 was able to get *thrust* from the cooling system at certain power

settings.  Surely there's a way to realize similar gains with an automotive

conversion.



-Rob

tracy(at)rotaryaviation.c
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:45 AM, <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com (gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   Bottom line all the "WATER COOL" Car 

based engines are at least several or all 

of the following:

 

-heavier 

-More noise

-low on power 

-fuel burn same or higher than air cooling

 -more cooling drag to day (except maybe P-51)

	
  

 I've already confessed that alternative engines are a mistake for most builders but couldn't let this go unchallenged :>)

  

 -Heavier

  

 Not necessarily.  My Mazda powered RV-4 empty weight (but including engine oil) is 948 lbs.   This is at the light end of the spectrum.

  

 -More noise

  

 True, but only when not running a muffler.  Measured with a sound pressure instrument, my muffled rotary was a couple of db less than a Lyc on fly-by at same airspeed.

  

 -Low on power

  

 My rate of climb solo with 1/2 tanks on a standard day is 2650 fpm with a fixed pitch prop.  This was measured back when I was running an early 13B rated at 160 HP.  No documentation to support that, just my word.  That same engine turned in a standing start average speed of 209.2 MPH in 2003  and 217.56 MPH in 2004 Sun 100 air races.   These are numbers you can verify.

   

  After all the agony of installing an alternative engine (and there was a lot), it was all worth it for that radio call - "Race 25, Race 29 is passing high and outside" for the first place win in Category 8.   Life is defined by moments like that!

 

  

 - Fuel burn higher

  

 Sometimes yes.  At low altitude, it looks like I burn about 5% more than an agressively leaned Lycoming.  The guys that run ROP Lycs burn slightly more than I do.   My fuel numbers look best at high altitude.  At 15,500 ft. throttled back to 172 mph TAS it burns 6 GPH.   Most RV drivers think this is fantastic but a lot of Lyc powered RVs could show similar numbers if they throttled back a bit.  

   

  

 None of this was accomplished by spending cubic dollars, fancy airframe mods or ultra precise building.  The RV-4 was built on a $20k budget (1994 dollars) and most pilots would describe it as 'rough around the edges'.  I do think it was built with a good understanding of how cooling drag is minimized in a liquid cooled installation.   I'm sure Honda could do better but true, there ain't no money in it for them.

   

 Tracy Crook

  

 [quote]  

[b]

Bubblehead

Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 48
Location: N. Richland Hills, TX

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:20 am Post subject: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

[quote="rv7(at)b4.ca"]On 6:45 2008-03-08 <gmcjetpilot> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are

 you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is

 not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles

 in a car.



	


1/2 million miles in 2000 hours is 250 mph.  That's a pretty fast car that

you're driving for 2000 hours.  Unless you really meant "1 to 2 million

miles," in which case you're only talking 60-120mph, average, for 2000

hours.  Most cars on the road today would do well to average 40mph, let

alone 60.

[quote]



Someone needs to check their math! 

1/2 million miles/2000 hrs = 250 mph

1 million miles/2000 hrs = 500 mph 

2 million miles/2000 hrs = 1000 mph  -----  not 60-120!

_________________
John
Keller, TX
RV-8 N247TD

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:46 am Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "mike humphrey" 

<mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net (mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net)>

Subject: Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

  >So was the Model T Ford.  It's called - 

 	  Quote: 	
		  Progress.  When is the 

production of 100LL supposed to be 

stopped?  

  We will eventually go to 96UL or 98UL 

like Europe and 80% of all aircraft will 

run nicely on that, including my O-360 Lyc.

 	  Quote: 	
		  Another US manufacturer that can't keep 

up with times-like the auto industry.  

What kind of car do you drive?  Where is 

it built?  Not US, is it, I bet? 

  You got me two Acuras, and a '67 

Camano.

 	  Quote: 	
		  The 'issues' pointed out as to reasons 

against, are simply based in conjecture. 

There is absolutely no data to  support: 

heavier, more drag, increase 

cost and not better economy or 

performance.  Zip, Nada.  Those are not 

constructive arguments, only opinions.

With regards to that rant following, the 

person has never built/flown a

  You just don't know what you are talking 

about. All the EAA cross country races 

are won by TCM/Lyc. All the Reno racers 

in the top gold ultimate class are P&W 

radials, with a few V12 merlins as also 

ran. The sport class is mostly TCM/Lyc 

with occasionally falcon V12 water cooled 

race engine. Put up or shut up. There is 

lots of talk but no proof on your part. 

Van did a fly of on Power Sport Rotaries. 

We are talking 200HP rotaries (alleged) 

with $9,000 electric MT props and all 

they could do was match or slightly beat 

a 180 Lyc, at the cost of an extra 4 or 5 

gal and hour and lots of noise. Van 

tested an  Eggenfellner RV-9A against a 

320 Lyc factory RV-9A. Again OK but 

nothing better. In fact the Egg ran hot, 

slower and gas mileage was not better. It 

also made not less noise or vibration, 

just different buzzy high Freq noise and 

vibration (because the engine is spinning 

fast).

Conjecture? Negative Mike, I have been in 

EAA since 1985 and followed alternative 

engines carefully. I have a masters in 

engineering, 9 FAA ratings and 12,000 

hours, 1,500 hours in RV's. It is true. 

Cooling drag with most (not all) water 

cooled adaptations are higher than air-

cooled engines. To be fair air-cooling 

has 70 years of R&D with millions if not 

billions spend on optimizing it.

  >Full Fadec IO Lyco-it needs everything 

 	  Quote: 	
		  that he states that it doesn't.

  I have no idea what that means? However 

if you are running a freight or corporate  

business with some C421's or Aerostars or 

Rockwell commanders (piston) I can see 

where FADEC would be worth it. However 

for GA and 100-150 hours a year, FADEC is 

a lot to do about nothing. You need all 

these sensors to work and all you get is 

one less knob. I love the mixture control 

on my plane and the work load of moving 

it 4 times a flight is well, a no 

brainier. The EFI on car engines don't 

work well. Real World Solution and SDS 

have EFI or ECU's for car to airplane 

conversions. The RWS even give the pilot 

a mixture control. My point is EFI is 

great for a car going from idle to 

acceleration and idle to acceleration 

over and over. In a plane at one power 

setting 90% of the time, other wise its 

wide open or coasting, EFI or ECU's or 

FADEC has little value for way more 

complication and a million extra failure 

modes.

  >Everyone is entitled to their  opinion. 

 	  Quote: 	
		  But one should leave the 

emotional outburst for the pulpit. 

  There is no emotion. I am an airline 

pilot and have an engineering degree. 

It's all fact and science. You on the 

other hand WANT so badly for something 

NEW and better and you believe all the 

hype. The Lyc/TCM are brilliant pieces of 

engineering. Any short coming is a 

planned compromise not some hair brained 

screw up. They are indeed state of the 

art. Physics and the laws of 

thermodynamics have not changed in the 

last 1000 years, as far as I know. You 

can't compare CAR duty to an airplane's.

  >What I was trying to point out is 

 	  Quote: 	
		  that if US A/C engine manufacturers 

don't look past today, tomorrow

will make them extinct.

  That is a fair point. So the new 

DeltaHawk Diesel, where is that? The 

Thielert Diesel had a dual flame  out 

because the ECU died because the 

batteries where low or something? The new 

Diamond twin crashed. People using the 

engine are having terribly short TBO. 

You can't make a "LIGHT" diesel PROGRESS! 

Look if I was starting a new engine from 

scratch in the 180 HP range, it would be 

a horizontally opposed, air cooled direct 

drive, hyd prop, engine. Hummmm what 

would that look like? Oh yea it would 

look like a Lycoming or TCM.

  There is something to be said for a Lyc 

with dual mags (self powered) and a 

mechanical fuel injection or carb. They 

are dead simple, reliable even if they 

are "farm tractor" technology they don't

stop flying EVER, unless you run out 

of gas or something really big lets loose.

Electrical independence is GOLDEN. 

Most of the car improvements has been 

in the electronics, which is a milestone 

for cars, but not so much needed in a 

piston  plane.

  >I'd be the first to admit that I hate 

 	  Quote: 	
		  change.  But sometimes it's necessary 

for survival. Enough on this subject, 

it's like beating a dead horse, Mike H

  Yes Mike you beat the horse, burned it, 

ate it, **** it out and than threw it on 

the wall, ha ha. 

  I know you want something better but when 

you fly Lycs like I did everyday for 

years and years as a CFI and Freight 

pilot and corporate pilot, you will 

appreciate them more than have fear and 

loathing out of ignorance. You are 

listing to the kool-aid drinkers who 

think automotive engines are the best 

thing in the world. The thing that kills 

aircraft engines is sitting for weeks and 

months and years at a time. You fly every 

day and keep the engine within limits 

(which is easy) and change the oil, it 

will last to TBO. If your car sat for  

weeks and weeks and years than you jumped 

in and started it, and got on the free 

way and drove 120 mph for 4 hours, than 

parked it for a few months and did that 

again, with out changing the oil and 

running it as hot as you can get it. I 

guarantee your car engine would not last 

very long. Stop believing all the bad 

things you hear about Lycs and TCM. 

  TCM/Lycs are out there flying 1000's and 

1000's of hours every day/wk world wide. 

Yes stuff happens and a lot of it has to do 

with abuse and poor maintenance. When it 

comes to the design and QC of the parts 

and materials they are SECOND TO NONE. 

  Yes TCM and LYC both went through their 

own crank shaft QC disaster in the early 

90's for TCM and lat 90's for Lyc. There 

is no excuse and they are embarrassed 

(and sued). Stuff happens. However the 

cranks made for 4 decades before and  the 

decade since are fine. Cheers

  On last note about other countries are 

taking or stealing Americas markets, 

  ie, "I drink your milkshake".

  Yep it can and does and will happen. I do 

like Japan car companies and the USA 

ones are floundering. I hate that in all 

trade agreements such as NAFTA,  

trade with Euro and China, screws the 

USA. They cheat and we let them. 

Enough. We still have the best scientest 

and engineers. They just steal, copy than 

improve, while using slave labor to 

undercut our market. 

  The LSA market 

is dominated by foreign manufactures 

and engine maker. Why did we make 

laws (FAR's) to benefit them and exclude 

American planes. Our planes are bigger 

and heavier because they need to be. 

Two adult men and fuel in a LSA will 

be over the 600kg gross. Rotax? Is  

an overpriced piece of junk. Hard to 

maintain, over rated power wise, they 

just had a "gear box failure". So over 

weight, under powered planes for the 

US market, Progress? America is a 

big country with big people (sorry fat) 

and little LSA's WILL BE FLOWN 

over gross with two people. We need 

more range and gross in America than 

they do in Europe.

  It is a joke and the gross should have 

been raised to 1,500 or 1,600 lbs gross 

so more US planes and engines could 

comply. I would rather a O200 or O235 

than a Rotax any day. At least TCM 

is making a light O200 for the LSA 

market for the Cessna LSA, which by 

the way is MADE IN CHINA!

Goodgreef, yea let them drink our 

milkshake, but bad mouthing Lyc is 

anti-American. The Japanese, eruo 

and Chinese are not brilliant, better or 

smarter; they just exploit our market 

while cutting off our products.  Even 

the US Air Force bought AIRBUS! 

  I can't believe it. The A300 is a piece 

of junk. I KNOW! I fly the B767 and 

it is way better than an Airbus, Why 

do you think there are still 707's flying 

as AWACS and tankers? They where 

designed and built well. Northrop and 

Airbus are just undercutting their price, 

but they will have problems with them 

and they will not last. The B52 is still 

flying? Why? because its a Boeing.

  I know America hating is in fashion 

  but not with me.

   [quote][b]

Ollie Washburn

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 56
Location: Central Florida

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:30 am Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

Are you done now---

 Ollie

 On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM, <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com (gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

 [quote] >From: "mike humphrey" 

 	  Quote: 	
		  <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net (mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net)>

Subject: Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

 >So was the Model T Ford.  It's called - 

 	  Quote: 	
		  Progress.  When is the 

production of 100LL supposed to be 

stopped?  

 We will eventually go to 96UL or 98UL 

like Europe and 80% of all aircraft will 

run nicely on that, including my O-360 Lyc.

 	  Quote: 	
		  Another US manufacturer that can't keep 

up with times-like the auto industry.  

What kind of car do you drive?  Where is 

it built?  Not US, is it, I bet? 

 You got me two Acuras, and a '67 

Camano.

 	  Quote: 	
		  The 'issues' pointed out as to reasons 

against, are simply based in conjecture. 

There is absolutely no data to support: 

heavier, more drag, increase 

cost and not better economy or 

 >performance.  Zip, Nada.  Those are not 

 	  Quote: 	
		  constructive arguments, only opinions.

With regards to that rant following, the 

person has never built/flown a

 You just don't know what you are talking 

about. All the EAA cross country races 

are won by TCM/Lyc. All the Reno racers 

in the top gold ultimate class are P&W 

radials, with a few V12 merlins as also 

 ran. The sport class is mostly TCM/Lyc 

with occasionally falcon V12 water cooled 

race engine. Put up or shut up. There is 

lots of talk but no proof on your part. 

Van did a fly of on Power Sport Rotaries. 

 We are talking 200HP rotaries (alleged) 

with $9,000 electric MT props and all 

they could do was match or slightly beat 

a 180 Lyc, at the cost of an extra 4 or 5 

gal and hour and lots of noise. Van 

tested an Eggenfellner RV-9A against a 

 320 Lyc factory RV-9A. Again OK but 

nothing better. In fact the Egg ran hot, 

slower and gas mileage was not better. It 

also made not less noise or vibration, 

just different buzzy high Freq noise and 

vibration (because the engine is spinning 

 fast).

Conjecture? Negative Mike, I have been in 

EAA since 1985 and followed alternative 

engines carefully. I have a masters in 

engineering, 9 FAA ratings and 12,000 

hours, 1,500 hours in RV's. It is true. 

 Cooling drag with most (not all) water 

cooled adaptations are higher than air-

cooled engines. To be fair air-cooling 

has 70 years of R&D with millions if not 

billions spend on optimizing it.

 >Full Fadec IO Lyco-it needs everything 

 	  Quote: 	
		  that he states that it doesn't.

 I have no idea what that means? However 

if you are running a freight or corporate 

business with some C421's or Aerostars or 

Rockwell commanders (piston) I can see 

where FADEC would be worth it. However 

 for GA and 100-150 hours a year, FADEC is 

a lot to do about nothing. You need all 

these sensors to work and all you get is 

one less knob. I love the mixture control 

on my plane and the work load of moving 

 it 4 times a flight is well, a no 

brainier. The EFI on car engines don't 

work well. Real World Solution and SDS 

have EFI or ECU's for car to airplane 

conversions. The RWS even give the pilot 

a mixture control. My point is EFI is 

 great for a car going from idle to 

acceleration and idle to acceleration 

over and over. In a plane at one power 

setting 90% of the time, other wise its 

wide open or coasting, EFI or ECU's or 

FADEC has little value for way more 

 complication and a million extra failure 

modes.

 >Everyone is entitled to their opinion. 

 	  Quote: 	
		  But one should leave the 

emotional outburst for the pulpit. 

 There is no emotion. I am an airline 

pilot and have an engineering degree. 

It's all fact and science. You on the 

other hand WANT so badly for something 

NEW and better and you believe all the 

 hype. The Lyc/TCM are brilliant pieces of 

engineering. Any short coming is a 

planned compromise not some hair brained 

screw up. They are indeed state of the 

art. Physics and the laws of 

thermodynamics have not changed in the 

 last 1000 years, as far as I know. You 

can't compare CAR duty to an airplane's.

 >What I was trying to point out is 

 	  Quote: 	
		  that if US A/C engine manufacturers 

don't look past today, tomorrow

will make them extinct.

 That is a fair point. So the new 

DeltaHawk Diesel, where is that? The 

Thielert Diesel had a dual flame out 

because the ECU died because the 

batteries where low or something? The new 

Diamond twin crashed. People using the 

 engine are having terribly short TBO. 

You can't make a "LIGHT" diesel PROGRESS! 

Look if I was starting a new engine from 

scratch in the 180 HP range, it would be 

a horizontally opposed, air cooled direct 

 drive, hyd prop, engine. Hummmm what 

would that look like? Oh yea it would 

look like a Lycoming or TCM.

 There is something to be said for a Lyc 

with dual mags (self powered) and a 

mechanical fuel injection or carb. They 

are dead simple, reliable even if they 

are "farm tractor" technology they don't

 stop flying EVER, unless you run out 

of gas or something really big lets loose.

Electrical independence is GOLDEN. 

Most of the car improvements has been 

in the electronics, which is a milestone 

for cars, but not so much needed in a 

 piston plane.

 >I'd be the first to admit that I hate 

 	  Quote: 	
		  change.  But sometimes it's necessary 

for survival. Enough on this subject, 

it's like beating a dead horse, Mike H

 Yes Mike you beat the horse, burned it, 

ate it, **** it out and than threw it on 

the wall, ha ha. 

 I know you want something better but when 

you fly Lycs like I did everyday for 

years and years as a CFI and Freight 

pilot and corporate pilot, you will 

appreciate them more than have fear and 

loathing out of ignorance. You are 

 listing to the kool-aid drinkers who 

think automotive engines are the best 

thing in the world. The thing that kills 

aircraft engines is sitting for weeks and 

months and years at a time. You fly every 

day and keep the engine within limits 

 (which is easy) and change the oil, it 

will last to TBO. If your car sat for 

weeks and weeks and years than you jumped 

in and started it, and got on the free 

way and drove 120 mph for 4 hours, than 

parked it for a few months and did that 

 again, with out changing the oil and 

running it as hot as you can get it. I 

guarantee your car engine would not last 

very long. Stop believing all the bad 

things you hear about Lycs and TCM. 

 TCM/Lycs are out there flying 1000's and 

1000's of hours every day/wk world wide. 

Yes stuff happens and a lot of it has to do 

with abuse and poor maintenance. When it 

comes to the design and QC of the parts 

 and materials they are SECOND TO NONE. 

 Yes TCM and LYC both went through their 

own crank shaft QC disaster in the early 

90's for TCM and lat 90's for Lyc. There 

is no excuse and they are embarrassed 

(and sued). Stuff happens. However the 

 cranks made for 4 decades before and the 

decade since are fine. Cheers

 On last note about other countries are 

taking or stealing Americas markets, 

 ie, "I drink your milkshake".

 Yep it can and does and will happen. I do 

like Japan car companies and the USA 

ones are floundering. I hate that in all 

trade agreements such as NAFTA,  

trade with Euro and China, screws the 

USA. They cheat and we let them. 

 Enough. We still have the best scientest 

and engineers. They just steal, copy than 

improve, while using slave labor to 

undercut our market. 

 The LSA market 

is dominated by foreign manufactures 

and engine maker. Why did we make 

laws (FAR's) to benefit them and exclude 

American planes. Our planes are bigger 

and heavier because they need to be. 

 Two adult men and fuel in a LSA will 

be over the 600kg gross. Rotax? Is 

an overpriced piece of junk. Hard to 

maintain, over rated power wise, they 

just had a "gear box failure". So over 

weight, under powered planes for the 

 US market, Progress? America is a 

big country with big people (sorry fat) 

and little LSA's WILL BE FLOWN 

over gross with two people. We need 

more range and gross in America than 

they do in Europe.

 It is a joke and the gross should have 

been raised to 1,500 or 1,600 lbs gross 

so more US planes and engines could 

comply. I would rather a O200 or O235 

than a Rotax any day. At least TCM 

is making a light O200 for the LSA 

 market for the Cessna LSA, which by 

the way is MADE IN CHINA!

Goodgreef, yea let them drink our 

milkshake, but bad mouthing Lyc is 

anti-American. The Japanese, eruo 

and Chinese are not brilliant, better or 

smarter; they just exploit our market 

while cutting off our products. Even 

 the US Air Force bought AIRBUS! 

 I can't believe it. The A300 is a piece 

of junk. I KNOW! I fly the B767 and 

it is way better than an Airbus, Why 

do you think there are still 707's flying 

as AWACS and tankers? They where 

 designed and built well. Northrop and 

Airbus are just undercutting their price, 

but they will have problems with them 

and they will not last. The B52 is still 

flying? Why? because its a Boeing.

 I know America hating is in fashion 

 but not with me.

 	  Quote: 	

[b]

_________________
Ollie RV6-A & Rans S7S
Central FL

rv7(at)b4.ca
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:02 pm Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

On 8:20 2008-03-09 "Bubblehead" <jdalman2000(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Someone needs to check their math!

 1/2 million miles/2000 hrs = 250 mph

 1 million miles/2000 hrs = 500 mph

 2 million miles/2000 hrs = 1000 mph  -----  not 60-120!


	


Whoops, you're right!  I did that quickly late at night, and erroneously

thought that doubling the distance would halve the speed.



Still, my original point stands.  Most automobiles would be lucky to

average 30-40 mph over their lives, let alone 250 or more.



-Rob



do not archive

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:31 pm Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca (rv7(at)b4.ca)>

Subject: Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

 	  Quote: 	
		  ><gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com (gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

> Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are

> you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is

> not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles

> in a car.

  >1/2 million miles in 2000 hours is 250 mph.  

 	  Quote: 	
		  That's a pretty fast car that you're driving 

for 2000 hours.  Unless you really meant "1 

to 2 million miles," in which case you're 

only talking 60-120mph, average, for 2000

hours.  Most cars on the road today would 

do well to average 40mph, let alone 60.

  NO you missed the point an AIRPLANE doing 

200kts for 2000 hours. That is a lot of 

miles (460,000 statute miles).  How far does 

a car go in its life, on a good day? 1/2 that.

  >> Water cooling? Who wins Reno air races

 	  Quote: 	
		  > every year? Big air cooled radials from

> the 40's and 50's.

  >For many years Strega and Dago Red (both P-

 	  Quote: 	
		  51's) traded the checkered flag,

while Rare Bear (Bearcat), Dreadnought (Sea 

Fury), etc. trickled in behind.

  Well not any more my friend, they can't even 

come close with out blowing up. Also in WWII 

the air cooled radials would get jugs shot 

off and they would fly home with the 

connecting rod flopping about. The P-51 got 

one shot in the wrong place, it was toast. 

Water hoses, radiators, pumps all things to 

fail. True!

 	  Quote: 	
		  > COOLING DRAG = HUGE IN WATER COOLED

> AIRPLANES.

  >Cooling drag is huge in all airplanes.  The  

 	  Quote: 	
		  challenge is minimizing it.

  Yea but we cracked the code with 

horizontally air cooled tractor driven planes. 

With the NASA research done in the early 

70's, people like LoPresti & Barnard have 

adapted the data; we have way way lower 

cooling drag. Look at an RV with a Sam James 

Cowl. About 25 sq inch of inlet. Now look at 

what Eggenfellner has for his latest cowl, 

two huge square scoops dumping into 

radiators with little pressure recovery and 

lots of drag, of all kinds. The stagnant 

point is out side the cowl and there is all 

kinds of external drag and internal loss. It 

sucks. But he had to put these big scoops 

to get enough air to go through those two 

little heat exchangers to avoid overheating. 

  Now add a turbo and altitude to the 

Eggenfellner engine. They will run hot, trust 

me. Water cooling is not a panacea.

Car's can afford to  have a radiator the size 

of a large flat screen TV when they are 

only going 70 mph and are in front of a 

vehicle with a large flat plate area, so 

fit and drag are not issues. A plane, going 

  200 mph, there is no room for a radiator in 

  the front of a small cowl.

You are minimizing frontal area and yes it's 

a challenge, you are right. However with 

air cooled horz AIRCRAFT ENGINES,  

you have all the heads and cylinders, plus 

oil cooler to shed heat. Because the whole 

engine is a heat exchanger, its easy to duct 

air to and through those fins, well not easy 

but well understood. Now if like in WWII 

billions in today's money was put into an 

all new airframe and water cooled piston 

engine, yea they could do something. But 

just adapting a car engine with a PSRU 

and throwing in some too small heat 

exchangers where they fit is not  optimal.

ITS JUST NOT A QUANTUM LEAP IN 

TECHNOLOGY OR PERFORMANCE.

  Sorry.

  ON THE OTHER HAND, the Lycoming is 

ONE BIG HUGE HEAT EXCHANGER. 

However instead of going from air to liquid 

and engine, it's just AIR & ENGINE. No 

middle man, hoses, pumps or radiators.

  Also Lycoming is LIQUID COOLED!!!!!! 

Yes! What I'm talking about. Lycs have 

OIL COOLERS, so they are actually air 

AND oil cooled just like a BMW boxer 

motorcycle and Porsche 911. 

  Yes the liquid cooled guys have a challenge but 

the problem is they are using airframes 

optimized for air cooled engines. So every 

thing is a jury rig make do, make it work 

adapt it fit it, not optimal. There is a RV-

10 going together with a P-51 belly scoop. I 

am eager to see that fly and hope for the 

best. Remember the P-51 sucked unless it was 

going 400  mph. It over heated on the ground. 

 	  Quote: 	
		  The P-51 was able to get *thrust* from the 

cooling system at certain power settings.  

Surely there's a way to realize similar 

gains with an automotive conversion. 

-Rob

  Yea I hear they shut the engine down and 

flew on cooling thrust? ha-ha, Look there is no 

such thing. It takes WORK or ENERGY to cool. 

Yes I have heard the rumor but there is NO FREE 

LUNCH in life, aviation or physics. Some where 

you write out all the equations of P-51 

aerodynamics and thermodynamics; you will 

find a loss. Just having that scoop on the  

belly with the flap open or closed is drag, 

even if just parasitic drag. There is no 

doubt cooling drag on reciprocating engines 

is a large part of total drag. All the best. 

Myths and legend does not make me think 

water cooling is some panacea for GA 

aircraft.  P-51 does not = GA plane.

Water cooling has been around since

the Wright brothers. It is NOT new or 

novel. It is in fact for all its pros has 

cons, the net of which is a bit of a 

negative in a GA plane, where simplicity, 

lightness and low drag are king. Sorry to 

burst peoples bubbles. 

  Lycoming and Wright, P&W and 

Continental all knew what they where 

doing when they made air cooled engines. 

It was a choice not because of lack of 

technology. It was there. It was just 

not desirable.

  I'll admit water cooling is "better". Meaning 

it has more thermal capacity and is more 

uniform and controllable (to get engines 

warm faster), but water cooling can overheat.

  Porsche 911 was air cooled up to 1998,

when they went to a water cooled version.

Why? Well laws on noise and pollution. 

Water cooling dampens  mechanical clacking 

of valves and lifters. However in a plane 

there is slip stream wind noise, prop noise 

and exhaust noise. The difference is very 

small, except on the ground to observers 

outside while you taxi. Also water cooling 

allows tighter piston/cyl wall clearance 

which does lower pollution. Yes a Lyc 

needs oil changes ever 25 hours because 

it gets dirty. BTW the myth that Lycs use 

oil, well they do, I go through about 1 qrt 

per 16 to 18 hours. Many people get 

well over 10 hrs/qt. So water cooling does 

have that advantage. However I love changing

my planes oil and looking under the cowl.

  On the other hand dirt bikes have mostly 

all gone to water cooling, but than many 

use titanium and magnesium in their engines. 

A good new high tech dirt bike can cost as 

much as some new econo cars.

  To over take the Lyc and Continental it  will take 

  a totally new technology with vastly better specs, 

  lighter, more hp per fuel burned, less expensive 

  and less cooling drag. Turbines fill many of these 

  but are vastly more expensive and burn more 

  fuel per HP. However after about 400-500 hp, 

  turbines start to earn their keep, at least for 

  applications that are going to be flown more 

  than a personal plane. Most of us only need 

  about 150-250 hp. Most auto engine conversions 

  are hard pressed to make this HP and still 

  be lighter. simpler more efficient. In the 100hp 

  and under class, car conversions are more 

  attractive and practical in my opinion. Still 

  in the 100HP range the O200 or O235 are 

  hard to beat.

  Water cooling has little use in a plane.

If you want modern get a jet. Now  a jets 

for a plane that fly's 150 hrs a year by 

a VFR pilot is a waste and not efficient. 

Jets earn their keep in reliability and 

speed, which is more for commercial 

applications. Fuel burn of turbines, hp 

per hp is beyond most individuals 

budget. 

  In conclusion you should worship the 

Continental & Lycoming, not vilify them.

They are engineering marvels and the grey 

hairs, no doubt long retired, knew their 

stuff. It comes after WWII development 

that brought piston engines to their 

pinnacle. Sodium filed valves than, now 

  roller cams, composite sumps, electronic 

  ignition, FADEC and so on. The Lyc and 

  TCM's are still evolving and getting better 

  and even CHEAPER. We now have not 

  one but THREE manufacturers of the engine 

  and countless others making accessories 

  and props for them.

  They are in fact AIRCRAFT ENGINES 

  made for AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, no 

  frill no fluff. What is great in a car commercial 

  like overhead cam's, 300hp (at 6 grand) or 4valve 

  per cyl. is not needed in a plane engine turning 

  2,500 rpm. If you want gear boxes and 6,000 rpm 

  engines, fine, go for it. Rotary? Sure but poor fuel 

  econ and noise are draw backs. Eggenfellner? 

  PSRU issues? may be? I don't know.

    Go out, buy a new Lyc $21k, warranty & huge

network of support & large corporation behind 

it, or go do unpaid test pilot duties for a 

one man show, mom-pop business. I am cool 

with either, it's your choice. Me? My engine 

conversion involved converting about $12,000 

into a used O360 Lyc & full overhaul. It bolted 

right up to my RV-7 with  factory engine mount, 

cowl and a Hartzell prop. I know how fast it will 

go and burn and what to expect. Done. Just 

  one mans opinion.

  Notice I am not bashing Alt engines. I don't have to.

  However notice that many alternative engine 

  proponents BASH Lycomings to make their self

  feel better about their choice. If alternative engines 

  are so much better, than they could stand on 

  their own merits, not negative comments of Lycs.

  I am just pointing to the many positive facts 

  about Lycs and TCM's and busting some myths 

  and urban legends.

        Be a better friend, newshound, and   [quote][b]

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

Tracy I respect you and AGREE 100% with you. I never put 

down alternative engines. I stated fact. Now how long have 

you worked on you plane in hours?  How many hours of 

R&D and tweaking have you done? The answer is it does 

not matter, because you are having fun. But bolt a Lyc on 

it will give you known performance and less tinkering.

It is just a fact. Of ALL the alternative engines, the Mazda 

conversion is the lightest and one of the best performers. 

However the gas milage, noise and even oil use are not 

trivial, and it's almost impossible to do anything about; it's 

just inherent in the desgin. I have had Rotary Mazda's 

since the 70's: RX2, RX3, RX7 and my friend has a 

RV8. She gets terrible gas milage, has to use special 

oil and needs to put oil in between oil changes. That 

is a fact. That is how rotaries work. Even compared 

to other sport cars with the same performance as  the 

RX8, like the Z car, the Mazda is a gas hog, and that 

is in a car, "city millage", "highway milage". An aircraft 

engine operates at very high power settings like 75%. 

Car engines, are usually using less than 1/3 of rated 

power. What does it take to do 65mph, 60-80hp?

  I'll leave it to this article on the Power Sport rotaries 

which by all account where some of the most beautify 

highly mod 13B's and PSRU's. Van's aircraft had a fly 

off between two Identical RV-8's with Power Sport 

rotaries (no longer avaiable) and two factory RV-8's with 

Lycs, 180HP & one 200 HP. 

  http://img325.imageshack.us/img325/3117/rotary22ms.jpg

http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/4323/rotary14wv.jpg

  For some  reason the 200hp RV-8 was slower than the 

180HP RV-8? (May be tired from being a demo plane?)

  Still the Power Sports DID VERY well. I want to point that 

out. They had the same or  few more mph or fpm more 

speed & climb than the 180HP Lyc. The PS RV's did weigh 

more than even the heavier 200HP lyc engine and 

significantly more than the 180hp RV. They did burn 

copious amounts of fuel above beyond the Lycs, 

not trivial, like 4 gal/hr !

  Also ground test showed the noise to be noticeably higher, 

even bringing people out side to listen. 

  These are just facts Tracy not put downs. I am tired of 

one thing. Alternative engines NEED to stand on their 

own merits. I understand the Lyc being attack or used 

as the gold standard. I know YOU don't do that. You 

stand on your own feet and tell the truth good bad or 

ugly. You don't sugar  coat problems. However you are 

the keeper of the flame and are a proponent and 

enthusiast for the engine. Nothing wrong with that.

  How many races have you or other Alt engines won?

Well you won the 160HP class sun and fun race one

year. I consider you to be a total straight shooter no BS, 

but I'll point out, why did you run in the 160 HP class? 

I mean really if you are getting 180HP performance 

than you should have ran in that class. In the 180HP 

class you would have been an also ran. Not a put down 

just numbers and facts. Races can be a good benchmark 

or not. The best test is by side by side flights as Van 

did above, with unbiased observers. of course the test 

needs to be repeatable.

  I'll say, if I was going to do a non Lyc RV it wont be 

a RWS, rotary with your PSRU and probably be 

turbo (to keep noise down and get some more  

efficiency).

Any one wanting to do a rotary, there is one place 

you need to go, Tracy and RWS, the nicest people 

and honest with smart designs. However be realistic, 

you are not going to be BETTER than a Lycoming. 

You just are not, it will be a tad heavier (I know I 

track RV weights), it will not be as fast (unless it's 

turbo and you fly high with O2) and it will always 

burn more gas. It is true of the RX8 Mazda automobile 

and it is true of a rotary in a plane.

  Also if you DIY and roll your own Mazda with RWS 

you can beat most Lycs in cost. However I have 

$12,000 in an overhauled Lyc and $2,500 in an 

OH Hartzell I bought for a prop shop. Not bad. 

Granted a new fixed pitch prop Lyc (160 or 180hp) 

is going to be about $25k. The numbers on most 

Mazda conversions can be done in the $16k ball 

park with fixed wood prop.

  All the best to you  Tracy, I am big fan, I just fly a Lycoming and GE and P&W.

  >>From: "Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com>

 	  Quote: 	
		  >Subject: Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:45 AM, <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

  >> Bottom line all the "WATER COOL" Car

 	  Quote: 	
		  > based engines are at least several or all

> of the following:

>

> -heavier

> -More noise

> -low on power

>  -fuel burn same or higher than air cooling

> -more cooling drag to day (except maybe P-51)

>

 	  Quote: 	
		  I've already confessed that alternative engines are a mistake for most

builders but couldn't let this go unchallenged :>)

   [quote][b]

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

Right that is my point, car engines are not worked as hard or long as a plane engine so there is no comparison, at least millage or speed wise or even continuous higher power output for an aircraft engine. It is just a totally different mission and the engines reflect that. People are amazed at there Lexus. I get it, but its a car not a plane. You also have all this steel and insulation and long tail pipes.....big radiator...etc.....Can you imagine every time you drove your car, you had to start off climbing "Pikes Peak" at 100 mph, just to get going, than drive down the freeway at 120 mph, every trip.

  From: "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca>

Subject: Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

On 8:20 2008-03-09  "Bubblehead" <jdalman2000(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Someone needs to check their math!

 1/2 million miles/2000 hrs = 250 mph

 1 million miles/2000 hrs = 500 mph

 2 million miles/2000 hrs = 1000 mph  -----  not 60-120!

Whoops, you're right!  I did that quickly late at night, and

 erroneously

thought that doubling the distance would halve the speed.

Still, my original point stands.  Most automobiles would be lucky to

average 30-40 mph over their lives, let alone 250 or more.

-Rob

do not archive

   [quote][b]

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

A couple of tmes a year I have to chime in to straighten out the facts. 

Alot of auto / truck engines are run hard... Take for example a Uhaul / Ryder rental truck. They are underpowered from the get go. People rent them and overload them till the tires blow out. They start them up, never let them warm up and hit the interstate, hold the throttle wide open till they get to the other side of the country, unload it, return it to the local dealer. A few days later the truck  heads back across the country, doing it all over again. Week after week. month after month... ya think this isn't a torture test ????????????? 

Take the marine applications. They use automotive blocks, heads cranks, yada, yada. Most boaters hit the boat ramp, dump it off the trailer, start it, don't let it warm up and spend the day on the lake running wide open. Sometimes running it through rough water making the boat jump out of the water, this causes the motor to overrev alot and then when it hits the water again it instantly loads the drivetrain. A plane cannot create that kind of abuse, but day after day, week after week boats do this to engines and ya know what... They live to run another summer, and summers after that... So your theory is suspect at best and BS at worst... 

Ben Haas 

A true auto engine conversion addict. 

www.haaspowerair.com 

Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com



-- <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

 Right that is my point, car engines are not worked as hard or long as a plane engine so there is no comparison, at least millage or speed wise or even continuous higher power output for an aircraft engine. It is just a totally different mission and the engines reflect that. People are amazed at there Lexus. I get it, but its a car not a plane. You also have all this steel and insulation and long tail pipes.....big radiator...etc.....Can you imagine every time you drove your car, you had to start off climbing "Pikes Peak" at 100 mph, just to get going, than drive down the freeway at 120 mph, every trip.

  

 From: "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca>

Subject: Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)



On 8:20 2008-03-09 "Bubblehead" <jdalman2000(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Someone needs to check their math!

 1/2 million miles/2000 hrs = 250 mph

 1 million miles/2000 hrs = 500 mph

 2 million miles/2000 hrs = 1000 mph  -----  not 60-120!


	


Whoops, you're right!  I did that quickly late at night, and

erroneously

thought that doubling the distance would halve the speed.



Still, my original point stands.  Most automobiles would be lucky to

average 30-40 mph over their lives, let alone 250 or more.



-Rob



do not archive

 

 	  Quote: 	
		  



====================================

tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List

====================================

tronics.com

====================================

www.matronics.com/contribution

====================================



	
 



_____________________________________________________________

Garage overflowing?  Click for steel buildings that are durable and easy to install.

   [quote][b]

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

"A true auto engine conversion addict."

  

  

 Sometimes people ask if scuba diving is good in Cancun Mexico.

  

 My response is that if it were, dive shops would make trips there

 instead of (or in addition to) Cozumel Mexico.  So I have to  reach

 the conclusion that scuba diving in Cancun does not compare to 

 Cozumel.

  

 I see the auto conversion in aircraft the same way. If auto  conversions

 were so great then they would have become very prevalent.  Since

 they have not, I reach the conclusion that they are inferior.

  

 Do as you wish but if you ever try to sell your airplane the reality

 of your choice will become obvious.

  

 Ron Lee

    [quote][b]

tracy(at)rotaryaviation.c
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

Absolutely, the Lycoming IS the Gold Standard.   It is very hard to beat a purpose built engine with that many years of development.  

I do think you over state the fuel economy issue when used in aircraft applications.  The disadvantage of the rotary is much less when run at higher percentages of power.  BTW, If anything, I think your estimate of power used in a car is high by a factor of 3 at 65 mph.  This is the main reason the rotary makes such a lousy car engine and partly why I bought a Z3 instead of an RX-8 <g> At low power settings the quench areas are huge and unburned fuel is really bad.  With higher loading, the flame front travels farther  into that ill-shaped combustion chamber and the losses are not as bad.  The lack of valve train losses help as well.  As I said, it still has about a 5% BSFC disadvantage even when well tweaked.  

 The PowerSport comparison was flawed for two reasons. 1.  The artificial fixing of prop rpm during the economy test. The Powersport should have been run at lower rpm and higher manifold pressure for best economy.  2.  The ECU used by Powersport was tragically flawed in it's fuel mapping.  To take best advantage of the rotary, it should have been run well below LOP in cruise (I cruise as much as 150 deg LOP).   There are valid engineering reasons why the rotary can be run leaner than the piston engine but that's a long discussion.  Short version:  There is a stratification of mixture in the chamber of the rotary with richest mix out near the plugs, but only above 4500 rpm.  That makes it of no advantage in a car where you don't cruise that high.

I could say that my engine does not use any oil between changes (75 hrs) but that would be a deception.  For several reasons, I don't use the factory oil injection. Instead, I premix 2 stroke oil in the fuel (4 oz per 6 gal of fuel).    The factory injection will make it past warranty period (usually) but engine life is at least tripled using premix. Yes, it's a hassle sometimes but no big disadvantage in the big picture. This eliminates the need for special oil in the crankcase.  I use Mobile 1.    I have yet to wear one out so I don't know what TBO is.

Ultimately you are right.  The only reason to install an alternative is for the fun of it.  There are NO other good reasons.  But the fun of being your own aircraft propulsion engineer is not to be underestimated <G>

Always a pleasure to debate this stuff with knowledgeable guys like you.

All the best,

Tracy

 On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:05 PM, <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com (gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

 [quote] Tracy I respect you and AGREE 100% with you. I never put 

down alternative engines. I stated fact. Now how long have 

you worked on you plane in hours?  How many hours of 

R&D and tweaking have you done? The answer is it does 

 not matter, because you are having fun. But bolt a Lyc on 

it will give you known performance and less tinkering.

It is just a fact. Of ALL the alternative engines, the Mazda 

conversion is the lightest and one of the best performers. 

However the gas milage, noise and even oil use are not 

trivial, and it's almost impossible to do anything about; it's 

just inherent in the desgin. I have had Rotary Mazda's 

since the 70's: RX2, RX3, RX7 and my friend has a 

 RV8. She gets terrible gas milage, has to use special 

oil and needs to put oil in between oil changes. That 

is a fact. That is how rotaries work. Even compared 

to other sport cars with the same performance as the 

 RX8, like the Z car, the Mazda is a gas hog, and that 

is in a car, "city millage", "highway milage". An aircraft 

engine operates at very high power settings like 75%. 

Car engines, are usually using less than 1/3 of rated 

 power. What does it take to do 65mph, 60-80hp?

 I'll leave it to this article on the Power Sport rotaries 

which by all account where some of the most beautify 

highly mod 13B's and PSRU's. Van's aircraft had a fly 

off between two Identical RV-8's with Power Sport 

 rotaries (no longer avaiable) and two factory RV-8's with 

Lycs, 180HP & one 200 HP. 

 http://img325.imageshack.us/img325/3117/rotary22ms.jpg

http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/4323/rotary14wv.jpg

 For some reason the 200hp RV-8 was slower than the 

180HP RV-8? (May be tired from being a demo plane?)

 Still the Power Sports DID VERY well. I want to point that 

out. They had the same or  few more mph or fpm more 

speed & climb than the 180HP Lyc. The PS RV's did weigh 

more than even the heavier 200HP lyc engine and 

 significantly more than the 180hp RV. They did burn 

copious amounts of fuel above beyond the Lycs, 

not trivial, like 4 gal/hr !

 Also ground test showed the noise to be noticeably higher, 

even bringing people out side to listen. 

 These are just facts Tracy not put downs. I am tired of 

one thing. Alternative engines NEED to stand on their 

own merits. I understand the Lyc being attack or used 

as the gold standard. I know YOU don't do that. You 

 stand on your own feet and tell the truth good bad or 

ugly. You don't sugar coat problems. However you are 

the keeper of the flame and are a proponent and 

enthusiast for the engine. Nothing wrong with that.

 How many races have you or other Alt engines won?

Well you won the 160HP class sun and fun race one

year. I consider you to be a total straight shooter no BS, 

but I'll point out, why did you run in the 160 HP class? 

I mean really if you are getting 180HP performance 

than you should have ran in that class. In the 180HP 

class you would have been an also ran. Not a put down 

just numbers and facts. Races can be a good benchmark 

 or not. The best test is by side by side flights as Van 

did above, with unbiased observers. of course the test 

needs to be repeatable.

 I'll say, if I was going to do a non Lyc RV it wont be 

a RWS, rotary with your PSRU and probably be 

turbo (to keep noise down and get some more 

efficiency).

Any one wanting to do a rotary, there is one place 

you need to go, Tracy and RWS, the nicest people 

and honest with smart designs. However be realistic, 

you are not going to be BETTER than a Lycoming. 

 You just are not, it will be a tad heavier (I know I 

track RV weights), it will not be as fast (unless it's 

turbo and you fly high with O2) and it will always 

burn more gas. It is true of the RX8 Mazda automobile 

 and it is true of a rotary in a plane.

 Also if you DIY and roll your own Mazda with RWS 

you can beat most Lycs in cost. However I have 

$12,000 in an overhauled Lyc and $2,500 in an 

OH Hartzell I bought for a prop shop. Not bad. 

Granted a new fixed pitch prop Lyc (160 or 180hp) 

 is going to be about $25k. The numbers on most 

Mazda conversions can be done in the $16k ball 

park with fixed wood prop.

 All the best to you Tracy, I am big fan, I just fly a Lycoming and GE and P&W.

 >>From: "Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com>

 >>Subject: Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

 	  Quote: 	
		  On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:45 AM, <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

 >> Bottom line all the "WATER COOL" Car

 	  Quote: 	
		  > based engines are at least several or all

> of the following:

>

> -heavier

> -More noise

> -low on power

 >> -fuel burn same or higher than air cooling

 	  Quote: 	
		  > -more cooling drag to day (except maybe P-51)

>

 	  Quote: 	
		  I've already confessed that alternative engines are a mistake for most

builders but couldn't let this go unchallenged :>)

 	  Quote: 	

[b]

tedd(at)vansairforce.org
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

A couple of misconceptions need to be addresses here.



First, it's ridiculous to compare lifespan of car engines and airplane engines

in miles, since they're installed in different vehicles.  You might as well try

to compare miles in an airplane to kWh in an APU.  The only reasonable basis of

comparison is hours, but to do that you need to match the duty cycles.



Fortunately, information exists that will help us do that.  Auto manufacturer

accelerated-life tests typically involve cycling between peak torque and peak

power for a period of around a thousand hours (the specifics vary from company

to company and from intended-use to intended-use).  It's done that way to save

development time and dyno-time cost, and over the years manufactureres have

learned to correlate these accelerated tests to real-world conditions very

accurately.  People who say auto engines aren't designed for the kind of duty

cycle seen in airplanes simply don't know what they're talking about.  The

tests they are designed to pass are very much like the duty cycle in an

airplane.  We can be very confident that the engine will have a lifespan at

least equal to the duration of the test if operated similarly, whether in an

aiplane, a boat, or a stationary application.  (And assuming the installation

is properly designed.)



Of course, once there is enough field experience (as there is getting to be

with rotaries and Eggenfellners) it will become possible to have a more

accurate prediction of life expectancy.  The preliminary evidence seems to

suggest that the "TBO" will be much higher than 1,000 hours.  I've been told by

boat builders running Mazda rotaries that they go well over 3,000 hours, and

the duty cycle is similar to an airplane's.



I'm not anti-Lycoming by any stretch of the imagination.  I plan to put one in

my RV (and I've already bought it).  And I agree with Ed, Tracy, and other

alternative-engine advocates that an auto conversion -- especially a "roll your

own" -- is not the right way to go for most building.  But, in their zeal to

critique auto engines or defend Lycomings, some people have made statements

that are incorrect or misleading.



As for Reno:  3,347 CI verses 1,710 CI -- duh!



Tedd McHenry

Surrey, BC, Canada

tracy(at)rotaryaviation.c
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)

 	  Quote: 	
		  

As for Reno:  3,347 CI verses 1,710 CI -- duh!



Tedd McHenry

Surrey, BC, Canada



I was wonder'n if sombody was gonna say that!  <G> 	
   

 Tracy Crook  (RV-4 w/ 80 CI engine : )

  

   OK, 160 CI for you SCCA rule guys out there. 

 do not archive

  

  [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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