VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #11  
Old 03-14-2018, 09:49 PM
charosenz's Avatar
charosenz charosenz is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Longview, Wash
Posts: 87
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by longline View Post
looks like a very interesting project. What sort of horse power do you expect out of it? The SDS system looks very nice.
The engine in stock configuration is 140 HP at about 6300 WOT.

I show just under 300lbs all up weight including the coolant. But this does not include the radiator.

I do really like the SDS system. WWW.SDSEFI.com

Last edited by charosenz : 03-14-2018 at 10:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-14-2018, 09:59 PM
charosenz's Avatar
charosenz charosenz is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Longview, Wash
Posts: 87
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moosepileit View Post
Does it cruise up on the beefy side of the cam with VTEC fully shifted or are you on the economy side and cruising evonomically? Will you be dependant on a single or dual oxygen sensors? If yes, will you avoid 100LL so your oxygen sensors are not fouled?

I had a tapered, 3 blade Warp Drive ground adjustable on a 125 hp O-290D on a clipped wing Wag Aero Cuby. I was asked to not idle it below 700 rpm as the direct drive impulses were a bit rough on the light prop. It was fine in the 40-130 mph range on that draggy profile. If I needed lower idle I was to go to the four blade, FWIW.
- The I-VTEC in the "R" series Honda (like this one) is quite a bit different than in all other Hondas. In the R series the I-Vtec is used in economy mode, unlike in the other series where the VTEC is designed to use the performance cams. Many people do not know this. So for this series, all you have to do is disconnect the hydraulic oil control valve to keep it from opening the oil passage that causes the economy cam to be used. To put this another way.....it is defaulted to be in performance mode. Slick deal for this application.

*** Please note the engine is in POWER mode when the oil control valve is energized (and not when it is unplugged as previously stated)- see important update in Post #50 ****

Last edited by charosenz : 05-29-2018 at 10:04 PM. Reason: correction on activation of VTEC and "power" mode
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-14-2018, 10:10 PM
charosenz's Avatar
charosenz charosenz is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Longview, Wash
Posts: 87
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian_JOY View Post
Very interesting indeed. Brings back memories of the CAM100 engine.

Will be even more interesting to see how the Viking gearbox holds up. I hate to say it but I think Jan is still having his customers do his development testing for him. I really hope this isn't the case here.

Don't ya just love how the engine starts and runs so smoothly?
Yes, this engine starts and runs like a sewing machine. I am very impressed.

I am very familiar with Jan's past, I began building my RV6a in the late 90s and I have been active in EAA every since.

I am very happy with Jan's support and I am very impressed with this gearbox. Sure, he does improve things as he progresses but I cannot fault him for that.

I am very glad we live in a country where vendors including Vans, Jan and SDS are not so hamstrung with regulations that there is nothing innovative ever brought to the free market. I say - let me decide if I want to accept the risks with experimental aviation airframes, engines and gearboxes.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-15-2018, 08:38 AM
Canadian_JOY Canadian_JOY is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,774
Default

I'm glad to hear you are getting good support from Jan and that you have high confidence in the gearbox, and hope it continues that way.

It will be interesting to watch the rest of your installation evolve. Radiator and radiator placement, exhaust, and whether you stick with normally-aspirated or eventually add a turbo. You certainly got off to a good start by choosing ignition and fuel delivery systems that can adapt to whatever changes you might wish to make as you move forward.

Please do keep posting news of your progress. Frankly, I'm looking forward to watching the video of your first Honda-powered flight! :-)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-15-2018, 08:57 AM
Lupin Lupin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 12
Default Auto engine HP

Quote:
Originally Posted by N804RV View Post
Notes below video, on youtube, say 130hp and 300# weight, all up.

I wonder what engine/prop RPMs are at 100%, what they will be at 75% cruise.
I wonder what the long term implications will be of using an engine that normally operates generating 25-40 hp (highway driving) and using it at at 50-75% power on a continuous basis. Car engines, even though they can produce high HP, normally do not operate in that HP range for long periods of time. I would'nt think they are designed to be efficient for that range.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-15-2018, 09:54 AM
rv7charlie rv7charlie is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pocahontas MS
Posts: 3,142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupin View Post
I wonder what the long term implications will be of using an engine that normally operates generating 25-40 hp (highway driving) and using it at at 50-75% power on a continuous basis. Car engines, even though they can produce high HP, normally do not operate in that HP range for long periods of time. I would'nt think they are designed to be efficient for that range.
That old hangar tale seems to be immortal. While it's true that cars typically operate at those power levels, auto mfgrs actually test the engines at power percentages, conditions, and durations that make the FAA mandated tests for certified engines look like auto highway loads.

If you do honest research, you'll see that the vast majority of 'issues' with auto engine conversions are rooted in the converter. Poor cooling design in the a/c. Poor engine to propeller interface (adapter, gear drive, torsional damper, etc). Poor design of the (modified) intake and exhaust systems. Thinking you can take an engine rated at 'X' HP in a car and run it at 1.5*'X' HP in a plane. Etc, etc, etc.

There are thousands of auto conversions flying successfully; we just don't see a lot of info on forums like this one for what should be obvious reasons.

Charlie
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-15-2018, 09:55 AM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupin View Post
I wonder what the long term implications will be of using an engine that normally operates generating 25-40 hp (highway driving) and using it at at 50-75% power on a continuous basis. Car engines, even though they can produce high HP, normally do not operate in that HP range for long periods of time. I would'nt think they are designed to be efficient for that range.
Perhaps you don't realize that modern auto engines are run at WOT for hundreds of hours during validation and are designed to be efficient at all ranges.

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tEqwXrqzH4

All the auto OEMS do similar tests.

Here is my friend Russell Sherwood's 2017 SARL record with his Subaru powered Glasair. The last race was run at 5250 rpm with a bone stock engine:

Texoma Air Race - 145 mile closed circuit - Average speed 250.94 MPH
BCAF Air Race - 159 mile closed circuit - Average speed 252.95 MPH
Hardin Air Race - 135 mile closed circuit - Average speed 251.92 MPH
Big Muddy Air Race - 137 mile closed circuit - Average speed 254.77 MPH
Indy Air Race - 133 mile closed circuit - Average speed 256.66 MPH
Ghost Run Air Race - 155 mile closed circuit - Average speed 256.91 MPH
Rocket Air Race - 159 mile closed circuit - Average speed 261.60 MPH
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 424.4 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
http://sdsefi.com/cpi.htm



Last edited by rv6ejguy : 04-03-2018 at 08:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-15-2018, 02:30 PM
ColoRv's Avatar
ColoRv ColoRv is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Tampa (BKV)
Posts: 893
Default

As the guy that ran those life tests for Chrysler in a former life...I have to wonder where some of you get your information. I can assure you there are no engine torture tests run on an auto engine to simulate life in an aircraft. There are no G-loading tests positive or negative and you can rest well assured the engine is not designed for G in any manner whatsoever. There are no altitude or temperature ramps in life testing that even loosely resemble a standard descent let alone anything sporty. The exhaust and intakes are identical to the production vehicle in those tests (both of which throttle performance)...will you be running the same? The engine electronics have a LOT to do with reliability...which airplane guys tend to scrap right off the bat (and it took us hundreds of hours to get those timing/fuel maps right).

We abused the Viper’s motor horribly in life testing but to compare auto testing to aircraft life is frankly laughable. I could go on for hours but you get the idea. We could test for months, then put the engine on the track and it would grenade inside 50 laps. Porsche had a fantastic test procedure/life test back when Dr Ferdinand ran the show but since his death even they have fallen (the 996 lacking oil pan baffles etc). My point being, a lab test is a decent start but it has to simulate what you’re intending to see and some things can’t be tested in the lab. Nothing of what an airplane sees is tested in an auto torture test...nor can it be.

By all means experiment. That’s what this part of aviation is for and I encourage any who are so inclined to do so. But do not believe even half of what a company selling auto conversion parts tells you as it pertains to engine testing done by the big 3 and for Gods sake do not put a lot of faith in a commercial posted on YouTube.
__________________
RV-8 Flying
1,235th flying RV8
SARL Race#95
SnF Homebuilt Judge

2015 Sun n Fun Kit Built Reserve Grand Champion
2015 Oshkosh Kit Built Champion
2015 Jeffco Kit Built Grand Champion
2014 Oshkosh Outstanding Workmanship Award

Broken Warrior of the Jarhead Clan

Last edited by ColoRv : 03-15-2018 at 02:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-15-2018, 05:53 PM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoRv View Post
As the guy that ran those life tests for Chrysler in a former life...I have to wonder where some of you get your information. I can assure you there are no engine torture tests run on an auto engine to simulate life in an aircraft. There are no G-loading tests positive or negative and you can rest well assured the engine is not designed for G in any manner whatsoever. There are no altitude or temperature ramps in life testing that even loosely resemble a standard descent let alone anything sporty. The exhaust and intakes are identical to the production vehicle in those tests (both of which throttle performance)...will you be running the same? The engine electronics have a LOT to do with reliability...which airplane guys tend to scrap right off the bat (and it took us hundreds of hours to get those timing/fuel maps right).

We abused the Viper’s motor horribly in life testing but to compare auto testing to aircraft life is frankly laughable. I could go on for hours but you get the idea. We could test for months, then put the engine on the track and it would grenade inside 50 laps. Porsche had a fantastic test procedure/life test back when Dr Ferdinand ran the show but since his death even they have fallen (the 996 lacking oil pan baffles etc). My point being, a lab test is a decent start but it has to simulate what you’re intending to see and some things can’t be tested in the lab. Nothing of what an airplane sees is tested in an auto torture test...nor can it be.

By all means experiment. That’s what this part of aviation is for and I encourage any who are so inclined to do so. But do not believe even half of what a company selling auto conversion parts tells you as it pertains to engine testing done by the big 3 and for Gods sake do not put a lot of faith in a commercial posted on YouTube.
What part of the FAA engine certification tests are not exceeded by the auto OEMs today? What part of aircraft use is harder than what auto engines see in validation testing?

Maybe you never had one of these at Dodge? Developed for the Corvette program because they were blowing up on the test track due to G loads taking the oil away from the pickup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvVK...felECCGoQ&t=0s

And, I don't think you watched the first video link I posted either. Think a Lycoming would last this long putting out 625hp (same specific output as the 3.5L Ecoboost)? How about passing the cold coolant test? This was a test out of the dyno room for the last half. You don't think the Baja race was a little more severe than the FAA requires? A Lyc is putting out 30hp/L, should be easy to make it last at 2700 rpm. This engine puts out 104hp/L- a MUCH more difficult task to achieve this kind of longevity.

And you're forgetting that there are thousands of auto engines flying and working just fine and have been for decades.

Tell us why an auto engine and proper gearbox won't work in an aircraft application?

The FAA aircraft engine certification test requirements are here: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...v5#sp14.1.33.d

These are far short of what the auto OEMS require to pass an engine for production.

I specifically posted the SARL results for people who dismiss the ability of auto engines to work and last in aircraft. Russell passed 600 hours on it last year. The engine was used when he installed it and it's never been opened up. He has over 20 SARL class wins and some overall wins.

A lot has changed in the last 20 years in the auto industry, well maybe not at some of the big 3...

Kia engine testing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNPB3RtHN2M 300 hours at full rated power and them some more above redline.

AMG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSPM1KxONAk

GM: http://media.chevrolet.com/content/d...Validation.doc

The Ford vid certainly has a big marketing angle but I doubt that they faked the whole set of tests.

Why don't we all let Charlie continue his testing here and see how it works out? I know I'm interested.

"People Who Say It Cannot Be Done Should Not Interrupt Those Who Are Doing It"
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 424.4 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
http://sdsefi.com/cpi.htm



Last edited by rv6ejguy : 03-16-2018 at 05:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-15-2018, 09:12 PM
charosenz's Avatar
charosenz charosenz is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Longview, Wash
Posts: 87
Default

As the O.P. I would like to respectfully ask that those who simply want to debate whether certified engines are better than non-certified engines to please start their own thread. I will join you over there.

I do not want to lose people who are interested in what I am doing

I welcome others to ask questions and share their ideas and projects that are similar.

Whether you want to fly an experimental airframe, with or without an experimental engine - more power to you!

I will continue to post updates and information on my project, as long as there is interest.

I do plan to do some testing with a turbocharger because I think it makes a lot of sense especially for this engine, on this airframe. This engine is unique in that it has a integral (read internal) exhaust "manifold" that results in a single exhaust opening. This saves weight, space and of course makes for a very easy turbo installation.

I will post pictures later this weekend, at least of the exhaust port and stainless adapter with the T-25 flange profile.

Right now I am using different pitch settings on my prop to find the best pitch for max power. I love how easy the warp drive prop is to change pitch. I have only taken it up to 5000 rpm and had to stop there as the torque started to rotate the whole engine stand. It is very stout, built with 2x6" and it is 4 feet wide, but it is on wheels so I can easily roll it in and out of the shop to run. I have built an "out-rigger" on it so it will be more stable at higher RPM......

Charlie

Last edited by charosenz : 03-15-2018 at 10:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:11 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.