GM 3.6L variants FYI

Discussion in 'General Auto Conversion Discussion' started by maticulus, Aug 11, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Aug 18, 2019 #61

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,763
    Likes Received:
    636
    Location:
    Norway
    Figure 4 in the report say best BSFC at 2000rpm to be about 0,0625mg/J. That convert to 0,3689Lb/Hp-Hr or something nearby depending on the nationality of the horses. Pretty close to that R3350 turbo compound engine.

    0,035mg/J is 136mg/Wh, or 0,207Lb/Hp-Hr, again depending on the horses but I did not find any BSFC numbers in Figure 10 in the report.
     
  2. Aug 18, 2019 #62

    Winginitt

    Winginitt

    Winginitt

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2019
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    18

    Glad to hear that you ignored DV and followed your own drummer. While I understand that Vans doesn't sell used engines, he has an interest in advising builders to follow at least a similar path to the one that is succesful/expensive. There is no denying that builders who purchase new engines will get their planes flying quickly and reliably. However, I get tired of the continued drone that as well as bolting easily to all the connections on an airplane.....that used engines are not expensive to own/fly/maintain if a person does logical oversight and maintainance. Properly done, an owner should expect to spend at least what the owner of a new engine spends, and most likely more than what a "new engine" owner will spend on a yearly basis. Thats what isn't mentioned. The first time they face a major overhaul, magneto obsolescence, or even a cam replacement,............

    Will those who follow the beat of a different drummer always succeed? Certainly not, a percentage will fail. Those who do persevere and prevail may however know the feeling of success and reap the benefits of their labor. I wish you much success with your project !


    Edit: added "on a yearly basis" for clarification.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
  3. Aug 19, 2019 #63

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    Armchair Mafia Conspirator HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,936
    Likes Received:
    1,937
    Location:
    BDU, BJC
    You might consider at least meeting the fellow before you accuse him of nefarious profit motives for recommending used (used? seriously?) Lycoming engines. The guy sat down with the HBA.com crowd at HBHQ at OSH this summer. Have you ever met him, Mike? Ever heard him speak in person? Ever asked him directly what profit motive lurks behind his (well-earned) opinion? Take off your tin foil hat and let it sink in that Dick doesn't make a dime on the purchase of a half run-out Lyc.

    Van is a stand-up guy and you can't get around decades of promises kept and customers satisfied. Ricky Gervais recently likened the Internet to the scrawlings on the toilet partition at the nearest pub, worthy of just as much attention. Sadly, even HBA.com sometimes falls in this category.

    Go ahead, offer your opinion over on VAF and try to stand up to 10,000 dissenting opinions from those who have actually dealt with Mr. VanGrunsven and who have actually flown their own homebuilt plane. Post a link here to that thread when you start it.

    Please note that I LOVE alternative engines. But I have respect for the Lycosaurs and Mr. VanGrunsven. The've got a lot going for them.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
  4. Aug 19, 2019 #64

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,640
    Likes Received:
    2,181
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Any homebuilder with the skills needed to convert an auto engine can disassemble and repair a Lycoming engine easily.
    It may or may not need any parts. No requirement to do a full Part 43 overhaul to Lycoming specs or to buy new cylinders, etc. A typical private airplane is lucky to get 50hrs a year on average. For a 60 year old average EAA type, do the math.
    If Lycoming made 30 hp engines, I wouldn't be messing with alternatives.
     
    mcrae0104 likes this.
  5. Aug 19, 2019 #65

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,396
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Location:
    North Carolina
    The Lycontisaurs work. That's why they are the most common engine in GA. If they sucked, like some of their old competitors did, they would have died out to be replaced by something better. That something hasn't come along yet, though Rotax has gained a toehold. I say this as someone working on an alternative engine project.
     
  6. Aug 19, 2019 #66

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    Armchair Mafia Conspirator HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,936
    Likes Received:
    1,937
    Location:
    BDU, BJC
    There is much I agree with here. I am perhaps biased because I watch my friends pay thousands every annual on (among other things) a new cylinder now and then, or a magneto that fails unexpectedly on the way to Oshkosh, and it makes me wonder whether the engine's truly "as powerful as the nation." (Or at least as reliable as my old 125,000-mile Subaru when you need to get 1,000 miles from home.)
     
  7. Aug 19, 2019 #67

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,640
    Likes Received:
    2,181
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Those GA friends are not experimenters. They pay thousands for an annual because they can't do it themselves for almost nothing. An experimenter might keep a spare serviceable cylinder or know where to get one.
    I would buy a used project just to get the engine and instruments. Nice if the engine can be run before buying it, but not needed if the price is $5000 or something.
     
    mcrae0104 likes this.
  8. Aug 19, 2019 #68

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    Armchair Mafia Conspirator HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,936
    Likes Received:
    1,937
    Location:
    BDU, BJC
    That is true they are not experimenters. But if they were, they might be flying an RV-10 instead of Brand S35, in which case they still might not be your (or my) brand of experimenter. This begins to touch on the other current thread about certified engines on EAB airframes...
     
  9. Aug 19, 2019 #69

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,640
    Likes Received:
    2,181
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    I think that debate started in this thread, around post 40.
    AD's are not that often a factor in old used stuff I am talking about. Check for it at purchase.
    EAA was founded on old engines. I think even R. Vangrunsven used a converted o-290G uncertified engine on the RV-1. Just happened to read his article a few hours ago.
     
  10. Aug 19, 2019 #70

    Winginitt

    Winginitt

    Winginitt

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2019
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    18
    As I mentioned in my previous posts, I have a lot of respect for what DV has accomplished. He designs and markets an excellent series of aircraft designs and products. He is also an excellent businessman. The allure of his products is not only that his airplanes can be built by anyone, but that they can be powered cheaply. Initially there were lots of used engines available for very reasonable prices. As the success of his designs grew at a remarkable pace, they created a demand for these used engines. The availability of good used engines shrank and DV worked with Lycoming to provide discounted new engines as part of his marketing plan. While DV doesn't directly receive a stipend when someone purchases a used engine, his marketing strategy thru the years has always included the suggestion that reasonably priced used engines were available for those that could not afford new engines. His profit comes not from the engine but from the sale of planes that were bought because builders felt they could possibly afford to build them by using a used engine. Many of these builders would have looked elsewhere or given up if they only had the option of a new engines cost. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using that as part of a marketing strategy, and many people do complete their projects by aquiring used engines to power them. A good friend of mine has an RV6 with a good used O-320. He aquired his about 10 years ago when more were available. He would not have built it if he had to purchase a new engine. Another local builder I visited was building one with a used O-290. His idea was to complete it and sell it and take the profits and build another one with a new engine. Obviously that project would not have happened if a new engine was the only option.So Vans original marketing was based on availability of used engines and as his business and following grew and those engine supplies waned, he found another viable option. Since there are maybe 10,000 Vans flying, its easy to believe there are a lot that were built with used engines, hence the difficulty in finding good ones today.
    What drove all of this to be successful was the high cost of not only "new" certified airplanes, but the high cost of maintaining or in any way modifying an old certified airplane. A certified airplane can become obsolete with a stroke of the FAAs mighty pen....because the cost of a repair is overwhelming or a replacement part no longer available. Look at the GO-300. Have an engine problem and can't get a certain part, and your plane is grounded. Vans offers a line of airplanes that provide great performance and reliability without the high costs of owning a certified airplane. The thing I'm pointing out is that the engine component of that combination still carries the "baggage" of high maintaince and repair costs that its certified bretheren have. Even though for the most part there are few "legal" requirements to do so, any prudent owner would realize that it costs just as much to own and properly operate a Lycoming bolted in a Vans as it does a Lycoming in a Cessna. Further, starting with a used engine that is purchased by someone incapable of working on and maintaining that engine, the costs of purchasing that engine will include money for professional evaluation of the engine, possible initial repair or upgrading obsolete components, and yearly maintenance and inspections. It would logically be expected on a percentage basis that many of these used engines will require major mechanical repairs before reaching their service life. So the after installation,costs of maintaining used engines would logically be expected to exceed the costs of maintaining brand new engines . That factor is what drives the movement for alternative engines. There are lots of Vans products successfully flying today and reaping the financial benefits of their alternative engine choice. In that vein, perhaps we should return to the OPs original inquiry into using a GM 3.6 engine and its viability in the homebuilt community.


     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
  11. Aug 19, 2019 #71

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,288
    Likes Received:
    6,058
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    All the homebuilders that I knew back in the 1960's and 1970's (and mostly since then, too) were building because they wanted something that was not available in a certificated airplane. Cost may have been a minor consideration; having a fun to fly airplane was the primary driver.

    I haven't found that to be true.


    BJC
     
  12. Aug 19, 2019 #72

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    3,110
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    My thoughts as well. Homebuilts generally deliver better performance than the store bought examples so the "value proposition" is compelling, but airplanes have rarely been "cheap".

    To the other point, my E-AB Lycoming engines are less expensive to maintain (properly) than the similar examples on a TC'd aircraft. By a long shot. Fuel and oil filters, spark plugs, ignition and Injection systems, fuel pumps, exhaust systems, alternators, starters, etc. These comprise the vast majority of consumables/wear parts and ALL are available from automotive or industrial suppliers far cheaper than those stuck with a TC.
     
  13. Aug 19, 2019 #73

    BoKu

    BoKu

    BoKu

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    2,798
    Location:
    Western US
    Statement presumes facts not in evidence.
     
  14. Aug 19, 2019 #74

    pfarber

    pfarber

    pfarber

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2019
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    "but EAA's long-held position has been that ADs don't *legally* apply to experimentals; they are not 'airworthy' to begin with, because they have no type certificate to comply with (FAA hairsplitting)."

    ARE YOU KIDDING ME. IS THIS A JOKE? You actually saying E/ABs don't have an airworthiness certificate? ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO SAY THIS IN PUBLIC????????????

    https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/aw/

    "What type of airworthiness certificate is my amateur-built aircraft eligible for?
    An amateur-built aircraft is eligible for a special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category for the purpose of operating amateur-built aircraft"


    YOU ARE 10000 % WRONG.

    E/ABs are required by FARs to follow an AD in two very easy to comprehend ways:

    You have a part (by model or SN) that is listed in a AD.
    You have a AC listed by make/model that is listed in an AD.

    If you have an a O-360 in your E/AB and the data plate SN is listed in an AD, YOU MUST PERFORM THE AD.

    How you are getting 'E/ABs don't need to comply with AD's's pure lunacy. E/ABs are regulated by the FARs. FARs demands AD compliance.

    maybe if more people understood this then less E/ABs would be falling out of the sky.

    Please call your local FSDO if you don't believe me.
     
  15. Aug 19, 2019 #75

    pfarber

    pfarber

    pfarber

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2019
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Pennsylvania

    But you are missing the catch all (and the rules I am posted are from the exact same AC that you are referring to.

    Read this. Please explain how the highlited portions make these examples not apply to E/ABs:

    b. Non-TC’d Aircraft and Products Installed Thereon. Non-TC’d aircraft (e.g., amateur-built aircraft, experimental exhibition) are aircraft for which the FAA has not issued a TC under part 21. The AD applicability statement will identify if the AD applies to non-TC’d aircraft or engines, propellers, and appliances installed thereon. The following are examples of applicability statements for ADs related to non-TC’d aircraft:

    (1) “This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) models GTCP36-150(R) and GTCP36-150(RR). These APUs are installed on, but not limited to, Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0100 and F.28 Mark 0070 airplanes, and Mustang Aeronautics, Inc. Model Mustang II experimental airplanes. This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed APU models installed.” This statement makes the AD applicable to the listed auxiliary power unit (APU) models installed on TC’d aircraft, as well as non-TC’d aircraft.

    (2) “This AD applies to Lycoming Engines Models AEIO-360-A1A and IO-360-A1A. This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed engine models installed.” This statement makes the AD applicable to the listed engine models installed on TC’d and non-TC’d aircraft.

    In #1 the E/AB is specifically named (Mustang Aeronautics, Inc. Model Mustang II experimental airplanes).

    In #2 the BLANKET statement "This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed engine models installed".

    Where is the E/AB wiggle room???

    If you say 'well, I modified the engine, it no longer certified'. NOPE. Read this:

    c. Changed Products. An AD applies to each product identified in the applicability statement, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of the AD. For products that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that performance of the requirements of the AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) provision of the AD (see paragraph 12) to request approval from the FAA. This approval may address either no action if the current configuration eliminates the unsafe condition, or different actions necessary to address the unsafe condition described in the AD. In no case does the presence of any alteration, modification, or repair remove any product from the applicability of this AD.

    As for the EAA, well, what the did was really important to example #1 above. That being if an AD is to ONLY apply to certified aircraft, then can exclude with but listing either specific types (172, P-28-200) or simply state 'in certified AC only' (or some such language). Prior to the 2012 AC change, there was not niche carved out to exclude E/ABs like there is now.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
  16. Aug 19, 2019 #76

    pfarber

    pfarber

    pfarber

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2019
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Have you tried to post an new idea in the auto conversion forum? Buy the responses I got I'm sure a few people had brain aneurysms when I suggested an electric water pump.

    Most people here seem helpful, but if you pose questions they simply huff and puff and list their life experiences like that matters (because they never did what you are proposing, they just KNOW its a bad idea LOL).

    So not only do you have few places to go that offer good feedback (even in this forum) but unless its an LS1 or an engine THEY have personal experience with, its just a BAD IDEA.

    I got banned on the homebuilt reddit forum because I dared spoke about EI being better than magnetos. NO! Anything more than 20BTDC will blow up any engine! PERIOD!

    lol 6 minutes later I had a new account and got right back in. If any of the reddit homebuilt mods are here you're part of the problem.
     
  17. Aug 19, 2019 #77

    BoKu

    BoKu

    BoKu

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    2,798
    Location:
    Western US
    I suggest you do a bit of your own homework and study the difference between a type certificate and an airworthiness certificate. Then maybe file the top off of your caps lock button.
     
    mcrae0104, pictsidhe and BJC like this.
  18. Aug 19, 2019 #78

    Marc Zeitlin

    Marc Zeitlin

    Marc Zeitlin

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2015
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    613
    Location:
    Tehachapi, CA
    So it's not the highlighted portions that make the examples NOT apply - those examples in the AC clearly DO apply, but it's the sentences BEFORE the highlighted portions (the one that says "This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed <xxx> installed" that DOES make it applicable to non-TC'd aircraft.

    If that particular sentence was NOT in the AD, then it wouldn't apply to non-TC'd aircraft. So the default applicability of AD's is to TC'd aircraft only, and only if the particular sentence (or something similar) is in the AD does the AD apply to non-TC'd aircraft. This type of statement is certainly a lot more common than it used to be, but unless the AD's applicability section explicitly says that it's applicable to "any aircraft" or "non-TC'd aircraft" or specific experimental aircraft is it applicable.

    I certainly admit that there's ambiguity in the interpretation, and that the latest version of the AC, as interpreted by the EAA, could have been clearer, but the EAA's interpretation is equivalent to mine (or vice versa, since they interpreted it first). And they've got higher paid lawyers to interpret it, and the FAA didn't dispute their interpretation.

    Again, this says nothing about the relative intelligence of ignoring AD's that WOULD apply if your airplane was TC'd, even if the AD doesn't explicitly say it applies - we're just talking legality here.
     
    BoKu likes this.
  19. Aug 20, 2019 #79

    Winginitt

    Winginitt

    Winginitt

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2019
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    18
    [QUOTE="Marc Zeitlin, post:

    Again, this says nothing about the relative intelligence of ignoring AD's that WOULD apply if your airplane was TC'd, even if the AD doesn't explicitly say it applies - we're just talking legality here.[/QUOTE]

    Exactly ! Well put.

    The thing about installing an older engine is that if a builder does the logical and prudent thing and tries to insure his engine is safe to fly, he needs to have those inspections performed. No reason why that engine inspection in a home built is going to be any cheaper ...
    but a lot of reasons why it may be a more expensive inspection. Someone shows up at the inspectors place of business with a USED engine they installed in a homebuilt and wants the inspector to say this engine and the airplane its in are perfectly safe to fly.....and sign his name on something saying so. The builder may/may not have any real or useful documentation on what the engine is or where it came from. Additionally the builder may have performed modifications to the engine using parts from automobiles. Things like spark plugs and adapters, an automotive starter and alternator. Maybe an aftermarket ignition system or custom exhausts. Maybe a fuel filter was added, and the inspector is unfamiliar with it since it didn't come stock on the engine.Could that cause an engine out, after all fuel system problems are one of the leading causes of unintended landings. Then there is an oil filter that was also added and didn't come from the factory. Lots of extra things to inspect and consider that would be much simpler when inspecting a garden variety Cessna. Then the question of what the engine is (data plate or none) and( log book/or none) and can the inspector rely on anything this contraption has for documentation. I've seen data plates and log books for sale. Any records of whether ADs have been complied with? Legally we seem to be questioning that, but morally the inspector would most certainly want to document what he determined. What if the magnetos are obsolete, but not required to be changed on a homebuilt. Maybe the inspector will have the same difficulty determining (as we have on HBA) whats legal or not. But when its all said and done and the builder is expected to hand over the money for the inspection, he is going to expect that inspector to put his name on the documentation. If the inspector is a personal friend, then maybe no problems. If you are someone he doesn't know, I would expect that he will do a lot more work inspecting a homebuilt and signing off on it than he would a Cessna. But then a builder might decide he can save a lot of that money by just skipping the inspection, after all aero engines have a good reputation and it seems to be running just fine.

    Then we get to the meat of the maintaince. Top overhauls before TBO. Why does that happen? Its certainly a well documented and common repair. Can I do it cheaper because its no longer certified. Well if I can do it myself, I can certainly save money. The parts will cost me the same as for a certified if I buy new ones, but hey....Joes buddy knows where I can get some slightly used ones

    Don't tell me this doesn't happen because I've seen what some people do to save money on their airplanes.

    That being said, there are a lot of responsible owners out there who use their heads and do things the right way.....but its gonna cost just as much money to repair one in a Vans as it does one in a Cessna when you compare apples to apples. There are some ancillary things where an owner can substitute parts and save a few bucks, but over all just as many engines will need similar repairs in a Vans as they do in a Cessna.
     
  20. Aug 20, 2019 #80

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,328
    Likes Received:
    3,110
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    Early top OH and cam changes in Lycomings are almost certainly a result of operator error. Treated properly, cooled adequately and flown often, a Lycoming will go WAY past TBO with nothing more than routine oil changes.

    There is also nothing wrong with installing a good used cylinder (or a whole set) to replace bad ones. Just so long as it's documented as a"repair" and not an "overhaul".
     
    BoKu likes this.

Share This Page

arrow_white