Hi, ALL aircraft engines REQUIRE TWO Spark Plugs, a FAA law.
Lance


ere to

 

That might apply to certified engines, but not experimental, which is the category the above would fall into.

 

I was retained to provide an aircraft engine of 500HP@25,000'.
I fitted my EMS with DIS/Twin Plug to an engine with No CAMS/Valves and Rods.
This engine was installed in the Tail area with the propeller behind the engine.
The plane also has a "pressured" cabin with FOUR seats.

 

Also, for what its worth.
I have been running a 5.3 in my boat and its cruise rpm is about 4500rpm which it maintains for about an hour at a time, I'd say 50% load or greater.

 

Why does it matter what aircraft it goes into? It may also go into a 3000-4000 pound single engine aircraft. Or, lighter or heavier twins.

Generally speaking, it won’t go into any aircraft that weighs over 12,500 pounds.

The engine truly has NO IDEA which aircraft that it’s in ;-)

 

Yes, everything will be fabricated, mostly because we need to have complete control over the process and availability. I LITERALLY listed the exact parameters of the engine.

No, we aren’t planning to drag a clapped out LS out of a donor vehicle, and make a couple modifications.

 

Please explain how Toyota certified its V-8 piston engine with one spark plug (in 1995).

Powerplants are FAA certified under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 33:

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...pter-C/part-33

Yes, we will use two plugs per cylinder.

 

Is this the aircraft? I see that the guy running this is advertising for people to “work for free”…. Classy.

 

This will be FAA certified, under Part 33.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...pter-C/part-33

 

Yes, everything will be fabricated, mostly because we need to have complete control over the process and availability.

We will likely use pressure lubrication on EVERTHING, including the camshaft lobes.

 

Save Weight, combine the Cylinder Head and Block together.
I did this for a Boeing "drone" engine.
ALSO much safer, No blown head gaskets

 

That’s not a terrible idea. I suspect that the valves could be accessed through the 4 inch bore, but there’s no way to get the pistons installed.

I fully intend to use a “dry” deck. The coolant loops will be segregated, so that no single coolant failure / leak disables the engine.

For the block, there will probably be four coolant loops, two loops for each bank. But, I will likely test a lot of arrangements.

I think that the cylinder heads need to be individually cooled.

It all depends on testing… what can we squeeze out of the engine, without it seizing / blowing up.

 

You don't really need that much complexity to get 500hp. You should be concerned about reliability and engine cooling, you don't need a turbo intercooler, but would definitely want some oil cooling.

If you are going to use an LS block you should be able to rely on the work that Chevrolet did and not re-design the cooling system. Stock it has good flow through the heads and block. If you do build an engine with different segregated cooling loops a single coolant leak will still disable the engine because if you overheat and seize one piston it's not like you can fly on seven.

Same with turbochargers. If one fails you can't fly on half of your engine, but you can simplify your design.

Oil control will be your highest priority. If you can't do dry sump you should have accumulators and an oil cooler for the engine and turbo.

 

OP fancies himself an engine designer of sorts.
IF he were actually an automotive (or aircraft in this case) engineer, he would recognize what you point out as strong points in the LS design.
BUT he would rather reinvent the whole thing, which is a waste of time to my mind, for the reasons mentioned.
I've never credited many engineers with being practical, and OP proves my point.

 

Correct, we don’t need complexity to make 500 hp… I could pull an old 454 out of a 1970s pickup truck, throw a cam in it, a big carburetor, headers, and I’d probably make 500 hp.

500 hp is a specification, not an aspiration. It will be RATED at 500 hp, and be able to produce that number from sea level to 18,000 feet MSL, and from -40C / -40F up to 50 C / 122F (temperature at sea level).

If the design made “too much power”, we would decrease the stroke to reduce the engine’s cubic inch, and maybe bump up the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) slightly.

Yes, an oil cooler is a given.

Sadly, the turbo intercooler is something that the “auto” guys seem to not fully understand. When that compressor is working hard, CONTINUOUSLY, for hour after hour, the discharge temperature out of the turbo is HOT.

Hot induction air reduces power, meaning that our 500 hp engine is no longer even capable of 500 hp. Hot induction air also reduces detonation margin, by a LOT. It can heat up the cylinder heads (slightly). There’s really ZERO benefit to having 200+F induction air.

The “auto” guys then will tell me that the air is colder up there (true, as the air cools at 2C per each thousand feet up). The bad news is that the compressed induction air is still HOT, and it takes a considerable sized intercooler to cool it down, BECAUSE THE AIR IS SO THIN. That’s just not a problem for cars, unless you’re racing at Leadville, Colorado (elevation 10,000 feet MSL).

So, let’s just say that we disagree on the intercooler. The engine will be operating routinely at 15,000 to 25,000 feet MSL, and it needs an robust intercooler. The ambient air DENSITY at 18,000 feet MSL is exactly half that of a car or airplane at sea level. That means that the turbo is working hard, and the ability to cool the compressed air is drastically reduced with the ambient air at half density.

EDIT: we also need a compressor to pump air into the cabin, for pressurization. That is normally performed by the turbocharger bleed air.

General Motors / Chevrolet Motor Division never contemplated their design in an airplane. Every part of the cooling system is a “single point of failure”.

Yes, actually, we fully intend to fly on 7 cylinders. If any cooling loop loses coolant pressure, coolant quantity, or the coolant exceeds a temperature threshold, the computer will REDUCE FUEL to that single cylinder. Should that troubled cylinder continue to increase in temperature, the computer will CUT OFF FUEL to that cylinder.

It won’t overheat, if there’s no fire!!! The other 7 cylinders will “get you on the ground”.

We can allow a certain power reduction, for example, should one cylinder fail, then the power loss will be less than 20%. If that failed cylinder throws an exhaust valve into the turbocharger, now there is another power reduction, so we need the other turbo to maintain 80-90% of the required manifold absolute pressure (MAP).

We need enough power to allow the aircraft to CLIMB from V1 (decision speed on the runway) to a safe altitude, and I would like that number to be 80% or greater.

Yes, the oil system needs an accumulator, mostly for the propeller control. Yes, an engine oil cooler. Yes, I’d love to do a dry sump, but the first vendor that we approached (Dailey Engineering, 42095 Zevo Drive, Unit 7
Temecula, CA 92590, USA) told me to F off. I’d hate to “reinvent the wheel” by making my own dry sump pumps.

The biggest challenge that I see is where to place the tank required to remove the air from the oil.

 

Thanks for bringing absolutely NOTHING to the conversation. Best of luck to you!

 

Here is the projected need from the turbocharger(s)

Pressures are in inches of mercury (Hg). For Pounds Square Inch (PSI), divide by two.

Altitude above - - - Ambient - - Turbocharger - Manifold
Mean Sea Level - - - -Air - - - - - - Boost - - - - - Absolute
(MSL) - - - - - - - - - Pressure - - Required - - - - Pressure (MAX)

Sea Level (0) - - - - 30 Hg - - + - - 10 Hg - - = - - 40 Hg

10,000 feet - - - - - 20 Hg - - + - - 20 Hg - - = - - 40 Hg

18,000 feet - - - - - 15 Hg - - + - - 25 Hg - - = - - 40 Hg (“critical” altitude, max boost)

25,000 feet - - - - - 8 Hg - - - + - - 25 Hg - - = - - 33 Hg

 

I stated an opinion, pure and simple. One that I think is shared by more than a few other members of these forums.
You came here with an idea of converting the LS design to SOHC. That quickly "tangented" to a clean-sheet design unrelated to anything LS-related with an accompanying degree of complexity that would be prohibitively expensive by any standard, including the current cost of the certified low power density air cooled tractor engines currently available.
By the time all costs are factored into your dream engine, including certification, you could buy and install a turboprop that uses far less costly fuel and goes nearly forever between overhauls. They are bulletproof, or nearly so. Any IC engine isn't even close to being so.
Hopefully I've brought something to the convo this time. And best of luck to YOU. You'll need a lot more of it than I ever will.....

 

Then why are you trying to put a car engine in an airplane?
In a way it is kinda cool idea, but if you're redesigning everything anyway, then it isn't really "LS swapping" your airplane. You don't have an LS. You Have a Tony Special.

 

You nailed it. He ain't takin' the clues we're giving him....