Man... what is this??? Pick on Harley riders week??? (Another thread in
another NG...).
Please don't confuse me with those white collar, two hours to put on the
biker dud wannabes.... If you wish to express scorn, please direct it at
white collar poseurs rather than fat old guys that ride for the ride rather
than for the "image".
As far as the engine is concerned... I would think that the power to weight
ratio would be one of the first considerations. I would also think that the
rpm where peak torque occurs would be a major consideration.... I might be a
high school dropout but I can understand what happens when a prop tip
approaches the speed of sound.
The roots type blower helps the bottom end on these motors, even though I
recall boost being limited to about 7 psi (easily changed, I imagine with
pulley selection and wastegate mods) but they are designed as a relatively
(for aviation purposes, I think) high rpm ramge as far as power production
is concerned.
I can't speak for the Olds engine... Introduced in the 60s, it didn't work
well for Oldsmobile....
AFAIK, the rights were sold to the Rover car company
in England and it didn't work well there, either....Naturally, in an
airplane the motor will get treated quite differently from a car engine....
this will probably have a great impact on the reliability aspect.
I'm sure that we can agree that you need a light motor capable of producing
lot's of torque at low rpm... hmmm, maybe that Harley ain't so bad after
all. You might check out S&S or RevTech motors.... Vee twin, lightweight
aircooled motors... Dry sump systems and,
AFAIK, fairly low rpm ranges for
peak torque production. Not sure of numbers bu these motors can be had in
displacements well over 100 CI.
"Bret Ludwig" <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129353094.760732.222680@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jim Warman wrote:
> > I imagine they turn up at the wreckers.... with a cast iron block and
higher
> > rpm, I can't see them being of interest to anyone with aviation in mind.
Add
> > the weight of the cooling system and the absolute lack of inverted fuel
and
> > oil systems.... I'm not saying it can't be done but there comes a time
when
> > we need to ask "why would I try...?".
>
> Dave Blanton of Javelin Aircraft in Augusta, KS sold plans, reduction
> drives and accessories to put the 3.8 V6 in experimentla aircraft for
> nearly a decade. Quite a few flew.
>
> Most aircraft engines including ALL turbojet and turboprop engines do
> NOT have continuous full inverted operating capability. Only one or two
> specially certificated Lycomings and some specifically modified other
> Lycs, Continentals, radials, and European inlines-used in competition
> and airshow aerobatic aircraft-have this capability. Neither the
> Thunderbirds, Blue Angels, Snowbirds, Red Arrows or any other military
> jet team have seen it necessary to install full inverted systems. Ten
> to thirty seconds inverted is their limit.
>
> Normally-inverted Rangers are sometimes modified to run upright and
> the Wittman Tailwind used a 215 Olds aluminum V8 turned upside down.
> They don't count, they then need to stay that way.
>
> No one except makers of overpriced yuppie junk, Harley Davidson and
> Lycoming, build air cooled engines anymore.
>
> I actually wasn't interested in the blower per se, I thought it would
> have a beefed crank and lower end and be good to run normally aspirated
> or turbocharged.
>
Linear Mode
