Jump to content


VOLO_VRHome200TigerTugsFrasca VRForum468Helicopter Academy
Photo
- - - - -

Car Engines vs. Aircraft Piston Engines


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 apiaguy

apiaguy

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right here!

Posted 27 November 2007 - 01:11

fair enough, on the lack of advancement by aero mfg's

Both examples given for 50+ mpg are NOT gasoline engines... both diesels'..... I said in a previous post diesel will be the future of GA.

#22 67november

67november

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mohave County Arizona

Posted 28 November 2007 - 23:12

the first fuel efficient gasoline system was developed by Henry Ford with the conseption of the gasoline vapor induction system, this system was designed to take the liquid gasoline and turn it into a vapor mixture prior to entering the manifold (without the use of a carb.) resulting in an engine the could produce over 50 miles to the gallon. this design was ready for production in the early 1920's. it was subsequently stolen by the American oil company and the US government and Henry Ford was ordered to never try to market this device ever again.
spinning wings are better than fixed.

#23 500E

500E

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VIP Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,213 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Sailboats cars helios electronics
  • Company working for:Owner 50 + years

Posted 29 November 2007 - 11:21

ap
Dont understand why we are disagreeing the last thing I want is to fly with large amount of highly volatile fuel under\ behind me, the gist of my argument is 1. low tech development on aero engines,
2. Auto petrol engines have been developed for the operating cycle that they are used for, with some development they could be made to operate within different parameters.
We are not going to get a converted light helio (22\300) with diesel due to cost
Yes I to think diesel will be the way to go, cant wait to try the new Subaru diesel, don't have enough info at present to compare with the petrol version but if it is within 30\40 Lb. some of the experimental boys will be there.
The Aerocopter would seem the ideal helio for it as they already fit Subaru power.
The wifes Honda is doing 48 Mpg on petrol on average and it ain't new, 2002 aerodeck, I will not buy new cars, she says I am tight, I say careful, she then said how come you fly Helicopters?.
See you cant argue with a women, only 2 arguments a woman understands & I no neither
Fly the dream fly 500

#24 Mr.Mike

Mr.Mike

    Newbie

  • VR Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midcoast Maine
  • Interests:I like stuff!!! I have two little girls, I LOVE flying!!!!
  • Company working for:East Coast Rover Co

Posted 15 February 2008 - 18:50

The perfect light helicopter engine would be the 2.0L turbo Subaru boxer engine. Weight is is very light, power and torque are awesome at 3500 RPM with pretty low fuel usage. They run wonderful on 100 octane unleaded with no computer modifications. The computer system is a learning system and can cope very very well with changes in power demands and altitude. I think the main reason why auto engines arnt used is because it is hard to change the mind of the government and the FAA is the governing body.

To the defence of the engines being used now though.... magnetos are fool proof and separate of the charging system, there for the motor can still run even if you have complete electrical failure. Leaded fuel aids in cooling of the motor and lubrication of the cylinders, lead has lubricating propertys. Air cooled engines have one less system to fail.

Just my two cents as an auto mechanic and a pilot.
I like stuff!

#25 rconaway

rconaway

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 15 September 2015 - 04:16

I know this thread was started a long time ago but I'm just starting to look into helicopters for the future.  As a car guy, I think the subject needs revisiting since car engines have improved significantly over the the last few years.

 

One of the arguments is that car engines need tighter tolerances to run higher rpm levels.  This isn't true any longer with the metals that are used.  in fact, car engines don't even need break-in periods any longer.  Now add in aluminum blocks, hypertectic pistons, titianium valve springs, etc...., and not only do you not have the weight, they are pretty indestructible at even high rpm levels. 

 

Then there is the question of why you need to run a car engine at 100%.  Push-rod engines from GM are designed to not only run at high rpms, they can produce a massive amount of torque/horsepower at low rpms.  And pretty much any car engine can be re-cammed and tuned to change the torque curve.  With modern synthetic oils, a typical car engine without some type of turbo or super-charger should turn 400,000 miles or more with no problem.  I've got an E-150 at 360,000 miles that does 80% high-way duty that runs like a top.

 

So if we use a modern engine like the Subaru, the ford-ecoboost, or any of the higher-performance engines, and we run them at reduced rpm levels, does it not make sense that these will make very economical and safe airplane/helicopter engines?



#26 heliflyknow

heliflyknow

    ATP Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 19 September 2015 - 00:11

I know of at least one modern car engine being used in aviation. The Hummingbird Helicopter uses the Chevrolet LS7, it's detuned to turn at 3,000 RPM makes 300 HP and it's still fuel injected/water cooled. That Heli is an experimental based off of an S-52, the LS7 engine and its components add $50k to the price so it's not cheap.

#27 avbug

avbug

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 29 September 2015 - 22:28

So, I still think that if someone would design an aircraft engine for a small helicopter from scratch today, it wouldn't look anything like, say, a Lycoming 360. That must mean it's really mostly cost of certification and development holding things back, like 500 and GP said.


 

 

Irrelevant.  It doesn't matter what's designed, if there's not a market big enough to make a return on the investment of design, development, certification, tooling, and production, and to cover the cost of liability associated with putting the engine on the market.

 

If you don't understand the effect that liability has on the aviation market, especially general aviation, look at the mishap that helicopter pilot Craig Hoskins had several years ago in his Pitts at Salt Lake City, during an airshow.  He made an error in judgement, destroyed his aircraft, and blamed it on his engine.  His resulting law suit against the engine manufacturer resulted in a drastic price increase for that engine world wide.

 

Some years ago, a man flying a late 1940's super cub from the wrong seat, with illegal camera equipment installed in his pilot seat, took off from a closed and placarded runway after being banned from the airport, and crashed into a van parked on the runway.  He died.  His estate sued, and the resulting law suit was the largest jury award in general aviation history.  It put piper aircraft out of business.  

 

Over 60% of the cost of most light aircraft today is strictly to cover insurance and related liability expenses.  That's just liability after manufacture.  

 

The cost to certify a new airframe or power plant is staggering, even with some of the tort reform that took place years ago.  The manufacturer needs to be able to expect a significant enough return on the investment to justify the cost of certification, and be willing to handle the resulting liability.  Putting an engine in an aircraft is not at all the same as putting it in a car, which can simply pull over following a failure.

 

Aircraft engines are subject to significant stresses and limitations; RPM limitations due to the work performed (moving rotors, propellers, etc), as well as thermal stresses.  They also face weight limitations, which restrict the metals which may be used to construct the engines.  

 

Even manufacturers for parts on engines have faced big law suits and challenges.  The big ECI cylinder debacle not too long ago resulted in very large law suits and settlements.  Putting oil in engines cost Phillips a large fortune in law suits resulting from the original X/C oil.  

 

Many shops won't sell parts or supplies if they know it goes in an aircraft.  Take the generator from your airplane or helicopter to a local auto electric shop for an overhaul, tell them it's from an aircraft, and watch them refuse it so fast you'll wonder if you ever asked the question.  Tell them it's from a tractor or a car, and they'll overhaul it in a heartbeat.  It may be the same generator (often is), but knowing it's from an aircraft changes everything.  It's part of the reason that many automotive parts that are used in aircraft (Ford voltage regulators, for example, or Chevy garlock seals) carry the same part number, are the same part, but have a much higher price when sold for aircraft.  

 

There have been a number of changes and improvements to products over the years, and the "antiquated" aircraft engines that you think you see aren't nearly so antiquated as you think.  They are also better suited to the application than you think.  

 

There have been a number of automotive conversions for use in experimental aircraft; some have been quite successful, such as the EA22 and EA25 Suburu engines used in some gyroplanes and other homebuilts.  Others have had a lot of problems, such as the V8 conversions used in the Thunder Mustangs...lots of failures and crashes.  Engines made for cars don't necessarily make good engines for airplanes.  Why massive crankshafts?  The loads and harmonics transmitted to aircraft engines are not the same as what's imposed on engines in cars.  Even the oils are different, for valid, well established reasons.  



#28 Mikej83

Mikej83

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 23:01

Wow I have never heard so many people in one place as I hear in the aircraft industry say it can't be done and I do understand why liability ok there is a huge amount of liability in building an air craft no doubt about that but I also believe it can and should be done at least in the experimental sector but the people that have the financial means do not want to redesign the wheel I get it I see helicopters used to crop dust wow those things can be beat up but if they are taken care of then great fly it all day long and uncomfortable omg leaking people dont have automobiles that look bad leak water in the rain and are uncomfortable to drive but they take care of the running gear I can tell you that the ls engine is a stable platform to build a helicopter they do not run on the red line but they dont need too there power band is wide but can be narrowed pretty small they have adaptive learning so they can fly at any altitude under 10,000 feet ok let's say I build an engine to keep its power band 2000 to 3500 rpm that is just about right at that rpm that engine is capable of producing 250 to 300 hp naturally aspirated the aluminium versions weigh approx 400 lbs as far as reliability I have one in my truck I have 350,000 miles the original engine it does not smoke or knock the only reason it has ever shut completely down is the fuel pump quit that in a helicopter should be redundant anyway it gets 18 mpg with an average mph of 35mph do the math on that that is averaging 2400 rpm and let's say consertivly 180 hp 225tq I have not seen many engines do that consistently as far as air cooled and water cooled go blow that smoke up someone else's but water cooled is hands down better in my opinion it can be controlled with ease make no mistake about it certified engines will not change in the aviation industry because no one is fighting to change them everyone has the same mindset I just can't imagine driving around a car or bike made in the last 10 years with a carb why would I ever pay 200k for a aircraft with carbs air cooled engine hard seats leaking doors and 60/70s technology that is ludicrous

#29 SBuzzkill

SBuzzkill

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,811 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northeast

Posted 14 June 2018 - 12:25

How are you going to change them?  Regulation to force manufacturers to a higher standard?  That would completely destroy the industry as they would never be able to recuperate the R&D costs.  

 

The only way I could see big leaps being made is to fully fund the research and development with public money.


Edited by SBuzzkill, 14 June 2018 - 12:39.


#30 takefootoff

takefootoff

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2018 - 14:00

How are you going to change them?  Regulation to force manufacturers to a higher standard?  That would completely destroy the industry as they would never be able to recuperate the R&D costs.  
 
The only way I could see big leaps being made is to fully fund the research and development with public money.



Well dah US guberment would surely fund it if it had a means to an end for the military.

#31 Wally

Wally

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Jefferson, GA
  • Interests:Reading's high on the list.
  • Company working for:none

Posted 14 June 2018 - 17:25

Wow I have never heard so many people in one place as I hear in the aircraft industry say it can't be done and I do understand why liability ok there is a huge amount of liability in building an air craft no doubt about that but I also believe it can and should be done at least in the experimental sector but the people that have the financial means do not want to redesign the wheel I get it I see helicopters used to crop dust wow those things can be beat up but if they are taken care of then great fly it all day long and uncomfortable omg leaking people dont have automobiles that look bad leak water in the rain and are uncomfortable to drive but they take care of the running gear I can tell you that the ls engine is a stable platform to build a helicopter they do not run on the red line but they dont need too there power band is wide but can be narrowed pretty small they have adaptive learning so they can fly at any altitude under 10,000 feet ok let's say I build an engine to keep its power band 2000 to 3500 rpm that is just about right at that rpm that engine is capable of producing 250 to 300 hp naturally aspirated the aluminium versions weigh approx 400 lbs as far as reliability I have one in my truck I have 350,000 miles the original engine it does not smoke or knock the only reason it has ever shut completely down is the fuel pump quit that in a helicopter should be redundant anyway it gets 18 mpg with an average mph of 35mph do the math on that that is averaging 2400 rpm and let's say consertivly 180 hp 225tq I have not seen many engines do that consistently as far as air cooled and water cooled go blow that smoke up someone else's but water cooled is hands down better in my opinion it can be controlled with ease make no mistake about it certified engines will not change in the aviation industry because no one is fighting to change them everyone has the same mindset I just can't imagine driving around a car or bike made in the last 10 years with a carb why would I ever pay 200k for a aircraft with carbs air cooled engine hard seats leaking doors and 60/70s technology that is ludicrous

Punctuation, paragraphs, please


  • takefootoff likes this

Just a pilot (retired, so I have a LOT of time)...


#32 Eric Hunt

Eric Hunt

    VR Veteran Poster

  • VR Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 821 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near the beach

Posted 19 June 2018 - 20:23

Mike j83, here you go:

 

.....,,,,,,,,,  .......  ,,,,,,,   ......... ,,,,,,,

 

Use as required, and put a capital at the start of the sentence.

 

Signed,

 

The Spelling Police






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



LORD_VRHome200MaunaLoaVRHome200Spectrum_VRHome200NFCVRForum200HomeBE_VRHome200AMTC 2018HeliHelmets-VR HomePrecisionVRForumHome200Genesys VR Forum 200