LS3 - It's not just for Corvettes

[Geoff]

Some kit builders in Cisco Texas claim to have a custom PSRU for the LS2 that is without failure...

 

https://www.supermarineaircraft.com/options-v8-engine

 

[Stephen]

13 minutes ago, Geoff said:

Some kit builders in Cisco Texas claim to have a custom PSRU for the LS2 that is without failure...

 

https://www.supermarineaircraft.com/options-v8-engine

 

I have been looking at those for years... they reportedly scale down the original spitfire drawings and actually build that. If it wasn't for the range, it would almost work as my next faster "Mooney" .   Note cruise/VNE vs stall speeds:

[Geoff]

The real Spits had lousy time on station as well in the early models. The climb rate looks eye opening.  I wonder what the deck angle is at that rate.

[Stephen]

 

 

According to the Internet, Chinese and Mooney in talks with Supermarine Aircraft company to market advanced trainer. 

@carusoam

Maybe you can tweet this back with a "Belief" meme...

@Blue on Top

Think you guys can manage that with the above specs + 1200 mile range w/ reserves? 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Stephen

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Austintatious said:

Well, perhaps I misunderstand, but I though liquid cooling was less drag than air cooling and possibly more effective precisely because you can Make a MASSIVE internal radiator that is fed with a well designed scoop.

Someone also said there there would only be a 90degree delta... MY CHT's run at 350-380 degrees F...  400 Max...  With a pressurized cooling system you can have super heated water and a quite high Delta T at the radiator.  If the coolant heading to the heat exchange was 400 degrees, that would be a 300 degree delta even on a 100 degree day.  Yes I know, now you have a potential bomb should that system depressurize!

So if you limit the water temp to the exchanger was 200 degrees you still have a 100 degree delta.   Im just saying that if they can put a sufficiently sized radiator into the front of a 700 HP corvette, it seems to me it should be possible for an aircraft.

 

It is quite a different thing between two parallel threads going here - one being that hey why not go to the gas station and buy some cheap gas, in a tank and go to the airport and put it in your plane.  That is illegal, and for a good reason, many airplanes will suffer a sudden stoppage incident and crash and then the feds will post Mortem discover traces of that fuel in your lines and write your fatal report accordingly. :-(

Then there is this one, that suggests that man kind has the technology skill to draw from our car technology to build a better airplane engine that can oh by the way, run car fuel.  Sure thing!  I bet we can!  But that's expensive and current market place is small and I doubt it will happen.  But it ... might!

BTW - I used to have a Diamond DA40 that runs a Lyncoming IO360MIA which is very similar to what is in a Mooney 201.  And the engine itself supposedly is capable of running mogas.  And someone was looking into trying to get a mogas STC.  But there was push back from the diamond factory since the fuel lines and the internal gaskets in the pumps etc, were not friendly for mogas so they said.  I dunno...

Now let's talk about that car.  How much is that car?

[jetdriven]

10 hours ago, Ron McBride said:

And what plane are these engines used

 

Piper Navajos and chieftains mostly. But there’s not I don’t think a single part interchangeable between these and an IO540 Lycoming. the TIO series are pretty highly stressed and are unique. 

[Blue on Top]

6 hours ago, Austintatious said:

Well, perhaps I misunderstand, but I though liquid cooling was less drag than air cooling and possibly more effective precisely because you can Make a MASSIVE internal radiator that is fed with a well designed scoop.

Someone also said there there would only be a 90degree delta... MY CHT's run at 350-380 degrees F...  400 Max...  With a pressurized cooling system you can have super heated water and a quite high Delta T at the radiator.  If the coolant heading to the heat exchange was 400 degrees, that would be a 300 degree delta even on a 100 degree day.  Yes I know, now you have a potential bomb should that system depressurize!

So if you limit the water temp to the exchanger was 200 degrees you still have a 100 degree delta.   Im just saying that if they can put a sufficiently sized radiator into the front of a 700 HP corvette, it seems to me it should be possible for an aircraft.

@Austintatious  No misunderstanding.  Cars and airplanes are different … in many ways.  The video (which is great btw) shows a car doing 200 mph on 700 HP.  Our Mooneys do 200 mph on 200 HP.  Although an airplane has a larger frontal area, airplane aerodynamic drag is significantly less than an automobile even with the penalty of drag due to lift.  The automobile has profile drag, but it also has drag due to down force (to keep it attached to the road), friction in the wheel bearings and drag due to the ground being so close.  The incremental drag added to an automobile for cooling is insignificant.  It could double the drag of an airplane.   Yes, we could add a massive radiator … at a significant weight penalty, and we could bring in massive amount of air and slow it down significantly, but all that adds drag, too.

CHTs are for air cooling … and that is relatively much easier. with the high delta T.

We're going to find solutions!

BTW, @Yetti, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the DR-980 engine … and it's air cooled, too!

[Blue on Top]

5 hours ago, Stephen said:

According to the Internet, Chinese and Mooney in talks with Supermarine Aircraft company to market advanced trainer. 

@carusoam

Maybe you can tweet this back with a "Belief" meme...

@Blue on Top

Think you guys can manage that with the above specs + 1200 mile range w/ reserves? 

@Stephen  OMG!!!  I'm in love … with the back half at least!  I look and see so much drag, though .  Awesome job in Photoshop!

[Blue on Top]

4 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Then there is this one, that suggests that man kind has the technology skill to draw from our car technology to build a better airplane engine that can oh by the way, run car fuel.  Sure thing!  I bet we can!  But that's expensive and current market place is small and I doubt it will happen.  But it ... might!

@aviatoreb Erik:  I agree 100% on the drawing from other industries to save money.  Chevrolet makes >1M crate engines a year; aircraft engine OEMs haven't made that many in the history of aviation.  A crate vette engine is <$10K (and can burn autofuel with alcohol).  Please explain how an automobile engine is more expensive (yes, there will be certification costs).  Thanks!

[aviatoreb]

9 hours ago, Blue on Top said:

@aviatoreb Erik:  I agree 100% on the drawing from other industries to save money.  Chevrolet makes >1M crate engines a year; aircraft engine OEMs haven't made that many in the history of aviation.  A crate vette engine is <$10K (and can burn autofuel with alcohol).  Please explain how an automobile engine is more expensive (yes, there will be certification costs).  Thanks!

$10k for an engine. $25M for certification.  Divided across 100 engines sold to airplanes since it will certified for the engine and for the airframe.  That makes about $250k per engine.

Eh Im making numbers up but Im just saying the aviation certification part of this would make it prohibitively expensive I am guessing.  But Diamond aircraft did it with those Mercedes Diesel engines, so there is hope.

Actually, I would think we would have a much greater chance of getting that diamond "astro" Mercedes diesel that is already aviation certified to be certified for a money.  Even that, an engine that is already certified, would still be expensive to certify for a Mooney.  I mean how much did the rocket engineering STC to convert a M20K to a TSIO520nb cost?  Expensive but I bet this could be done.

Anyway - I think by the time we would be done we would not be talking 10k per engine.  We would be talking 100-250k per engine installed on the nose of your certified airplane.

Actually, if this is the way someone really wants to go, I think it is only reasonable to think about it as an experimental category operation.  10k engine plus 10k in mounting parts and then off you go!

[Blue on Top]

4 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

1a) But Diamond aircraft did it with those Mercedes Diesel engines, so there is hope.

1b) Actually, I would think we would have a much greater chance of getting that diamond "astro" Mercedes diesel that is already aviation certified to be certified for a money.  Even that, an engine that is already certified, would still be expensive to certify for a Mooney.

2) Actually, if this is the way someone really wants to go, I think it is only reasonable to think about it as an experimental category operation.  10k engine plus 10k in mounting parts and then off you go!

1) Diamond dropped the Mercedes many years ago and designed their own for their airplanes.  The certificated horsepower is 170 HP.

2) I can be wrong and corrected (learn), but one can't just throw a different engine on a certificated airplane, label it "experimental" and then operate it in the normal category.  I have heard of people getting away with it for a year, but there are restrictions on operations (passengers, etc.).  Along those lines, I am (educated) guessing that those airplanes are put in the "experimental", "market survey" category.  Just a thought.

 

[aviatoreb]

37 minutes ago, Blue on Top said:

1) Diamond dropped the Mercedes many years ago and designed their own for their airplanes.  The certificated horsepower is 170 HP.

2) I can be wrong and corrected (learn), but one can't just throw a different engine on a certificated airplane, label it "experimental" and then operate it in the normal category.  I have heard of people getting away with it for a year, but there are restrictions on operations (passengers, etc.).  Along those lines, I am (educated) guessing that those airplanes are put in the "experimental", "market survey" category.  Just a thought.

 

1) you might be right.  They had a crisis with availability of their Diesel engines at some point and I think they did what you said.  I haven't followed so closely.  I thought their current astro diesel was largely based on or a reworked version fo the Mercedes diesel though.  170hp sounds right.  Its not completely a comparable number to a 200hp IO360 since it is a turbo engine so you get that power at altitude, but also somehow they are able to cruise at 90% so a lot of that power is available in cruise.

2) I meant in a real experimental airplane.  Get a Vans 10 and put a corvette on the nose.  I think you are quite right you can't convert a certified to experimental for normal unrestricted use.

E

[jetdriven]

Eric did you read the article where I posted where the vans RV 10 with the LS1 engine crashed? I think if auto conversions were ever successful we will see more of them, but in fact you see basically none. Peitenpol aircampers with model A’s notwithstanding

[tmo]

Well, depends on the power - the ultralight folks seem to be using Subaru engines, and the old VW boxers, I've also seen a BMW motorcycle engine used.  Unless they take the easy way out and get a Rotax.  But those are relatively low power, nothing mighty like what you all are talking about.

[aviatoreb]

7 hours ago, jetdriven said:

Eric did you read the article where I posted where the vans RV 10 with the LS1 engine crashed? I think if auto conversions were ever successful we will see more of them, but in fact you see basically none. Peitenpol aircampers with model A’s notwithstanding

No I didn’t read it but I did read others like it.  But I agree!  I was only talking price wise the price effective way to do an auto engine Is in experimental category.  That a certified car engine is unlikely and won’t be cheap if there ever were one.

then again I remember one article by a fellow who got an eggenfeller-Subaru engine for his rv7 then after years of expensive of nuisance issues especially cooling and gearbox stuff he finally pulled and put a lycoming on the nose.

personally if I would ever build an experimental I will put some kind of aviation specific purpose designed engine.  Continental-lycoming-rotax from their x-menu or... pt6.

Ps - Erik with a k.  :-)

Edited January 19, 2020 by aviatoreb

[Blue on Top]

7 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

1) I thought their current astro diesel was largely based on or a reworked version fo the Mercedes diesel though.  170hp sounds right.  Its not completely a comparable number to a 200hp IO360 since it is a turbo engine so you get that power at altitude, but also somehow they are able to cruise at 90% so a lot of that power is available in cruise.

2) I meant in a real experimental airplane.  Get a Vans 10 and put a corvette on the nose.  I think you are quite right you can't convert a certified to experimental for normal unrestricted use.

E

@aviatoreb  Erik: I believe that we agree .  I agree with your numbers, too.  The problem with that is HP is takeoff and climb performance (an "Ovation" will initially outperform an "Acclaim"), but the cruise speeds would be improved … especially if you don't mind going up.

2) Gotcha.

3) (not above … and I should start a new thread if I really want to talk about this)  But you have made me think about a topic when 2 and 2 are added.  I'm in the Experimental world a lot, too, but I don't remember people desiring a full-aircraft parachute there.  So (and I'm thinking way too logical and not with my heart) why are parachutes needed on airplanes that have to prove reliability and structures and not on those airplanes that don't?

Thanks for the great discussion, Ron

[chrisk]

For some reason the M20L comes to mind as a reason not to go with an auto maker for an aircraft engine.  Can anyone get engine parts for their Porsche powered Mooney?  Do we think auto makers will continue to make the same engine for 50 years?

On a practical front, there is like more to it than just getting an engine design certified.  I expect the manufacturing process needs certification too.  For example, lets say GM decides to change  the design of the engine valves to use a new fancy alloy.  I would think some re-certification work needs to be done.  --So, if you aren't the owner/producer of the engine, it might be bit of a challenge.  The factory might change parts of the design because they went with a new component supplier, and you discover that how?

 

 

[John Mininger]

Sorry I'm a little late to this thread. It's interesting that you ask about the LS3 engine Ron. About 20 years ago there were a couple NASA engineers out of Langley, Mark Moore and Andrew Hahn working on the Personal Air Vehicle (PAV) project before it was defunded. In 2002 they published what was in my opinion, a fascinating article on a concept airframe that was sort of designed around the GM LS1 engine. I don't know what Andy Hahn is doing now, but the last I heard Mark Moore is the director of engineering at Uber Elevate. 

I attached the article if anyone's interested.

PAVE CTOL Concept Article.PDF

[Andy95W]

About 20-25 years ago there was a group that was going to certify a V-8 and put them in Navajos and Aerostars. There was a lot of interest because it looked like a really good, viable, and cost effective idea.

So why aren’t there any flying?  The bottom line is that our 80 year old technology engines are much more cost effective and appropriate for the application than people realize or credit.

Sorry, being a buzz kill again. 

[Blue on Top]

On 1/19/2020 at 4:56 PM, Andy95W said:

So why aren’t there any flying?  The bottom line is that our 80 year old technology engines are much more cost effective and appropriate for the application than people realize or credit.  Sorry, being a buzz kill again. 

@John Mininger  Thanks for the article.  I have found a lot of the PAV data.  Their goal was a little different, but it is very applicable.  They wanted to use the engine "as is" without a gearbox, which causes great inefficiencies in the application.

@Andy95W  You're definitely not a buzz kill .  Reality is reality … I get into trouble for stating the truth, too .  Now to address your greatly appreciated comments.  The big difference between aircraft engines and automobile engines is the power output and schedule.  A car uses high horsepower for a very short time and low horsepower for a long time.  It also goes up and down in power a lot.  An airplane engine on the other hand is at high power ALL the time, but it doesn't go up and down in power a lot.  And most importantly doesn't need low-end torque.  Personally, I laugh when people mention that electric motors have great low-end torque, and the torque curves are almost constant.  Torque required is determined by the propeller.  More RPM; more torque required.  More blade angle; more torque required.  RPM is set by propeller diameter (or vise versa).  Aircraft engines run at a constant RPM … almost 100% of the time.

More directly, the Orenda engine doesn't exist today because one can't take a car engine rated at 200 HP in a car and run it at 200 HP continuously in an airplane.  It runs at 25-30 HP in the car.

[carusoam]

A stock firebird with a 5.7 liter V8 will run max power for a bout 15 seconds at a time...

Enough to travel 0 to 100mph and cover the distance of a quarter mile... 

It isn’t very engine friendly when letting off the throttle some to shift twice during the run...

 

To run this much HP for extended periods of time must use a very large radiator to dissipate that much heat...

GM ran some interesting tests over the last decade... Stock Corvettes and Cadillacs running for 24hrs at full speed around a race track...
 

PP thoughts only, not a race car driver...

Best regards,

-a-

[Blue on Top]

I have a source for data of these engines running for 2.5-3 years at full power, stopping for oil changes only.  If the source comes through, this data "may" be the tipping point.

Keep the information, questions and doubts coming, I LOVE data!  And live in reality.

[Yetti]

It's just a square peg round hole thing.    I think you would be better tinkering with a M14P radial.   Apparently there are some used to pump water than run forever.  300HP just need a slick airframe to attach one to.  And radials sound cool.

[Blue on Top]

Okay.  You win, @Yetti   If I think it is difficult to cool a water cooled engine, you'll have a great time trying to lower the drag of air cooling 9, individual cylinders evenly around each cylinder.

I am kinda curious how a Mooney would look with a radial on it (I know someone will photoshop it).  The Mooney does look good as a taildragger, though.  Y'all are awesome! 

[steingar]

Ron Wattanja has done quite a bit of accident analysis for the EAA.  According to him, most experimental airplanes crash for the same reason as our certificated aircraft, pilot miscontrol.  But there is a category of accidents in experimentals that simply doesn't occur in certificated aircraft, and that's builder mistakes.  and in that category there is a significant uptick in auto engine conversions.

The other thing I've noticed is that when these conversions are used for aircraft, unless they've already been engineered the builder spends enough time, energy and money trying to shoehorn the auto engine in that it would have been cheaper to use the airplane engine in the first place.

The only auto engines I've ever heard of having much success in aviation are air-cooled ones like the VW and Corsair.  And even then, the success is mixed at best.  We shouldn't forget that John Monnet's son died flying one of his VW powered designs.