Twin Ford V10s anyone...anyone...

Discussion in 'Ford' started by F82man, Aug 6, 2008.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Mar 4, 2009 #21

    F82man

    F82man

    F82man

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also, If you let people tell you what they think of your ideas of what "will and won't work", you are limiting yourself to their failures. Now-a-days, thinking "outside the box" has proven very educational, and progressive in the field of engineering. Look at lycoming and continental, how much has really changed in the last 75 years? On the other hand, it is probably safer to use what has worked "forever". The choice is yours. The information out there is voluminous, and is there for the taking. Don
     
  2. Mar 4, 2009 #22

    pepsi71ocean

    pepsi71ocean

    pepsi71ocean

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South New Jersey
    i agree don. I was talking to my brother and dad today about the Project and i mentioned that. I said there has to be a market for this. Im sure that i could build and sell the V-12 Merlin and or the V-10 as well, for less then what it will cost to build. the plan to build the first one and run it till she dies, and then redesign the part or parts that fail, it seems costly but ide rather spend the money in the engine first then build the airplane knowing i have a good standing engine.

    Ive considered composits, but i think i'll prefer an aluminum plane just for the reliability factor.

    Also Don, you should make that a 4 valve per cylinder on that Viper motor. I know my 5.9 Cummins has it so its doable. It would help increase flow into and out of the engine and provide better flow. The add low compression cylinders, and a single stage supercharger running 10-12 psi of boost. should give you a good long lasting desing.
     
  3. Dec 14, 2009 #23

    F82man

    F82man

    F82man

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Pepsi, Merry Christmas, hope all is well with you. I have heard of a fellow that makes his own heads, and blocks for racing, and special orders. I was thinking, these engines have something in common, a 400cu inch small block chevy V-8, and a 500 cu inch Viper V-10, and the 600 cu inch Falconer V-12, all have 50 cubes per cylinder. So, what about the idea of producing the 502 chevy as a V-12? The cylinders would be about 62 cubes, closer to the sound of a Merlin, or an Allison. Think about this: First idea, cut the back two cylinders off of one block, and the front two cylinders off of another block. (Obviously you could not fly with this!!) Second idea: this could be a great "mold" of sorts to tinker with, and VIOLA, you now have the makings of a 750 to 900 cube V-12. With some thinking, cast a V-12 block of aluminum, install steel sleeves, get a stroked billet crank, and camshaft, and you can utilize the reliable, stock, (sort of), rods, pistons, bearings, etc that have been proven by millions of engines over the years. This could be something to consider, since the Falconer V-12 is mostly just that, only a small block chevy. The torque would be incredible, and it could power the larger scale planes that had the V-12 engines, and you could still get the sound. Just an idea. Don
     
  4. Dec 14, 2009 #24

    F82man

    F82man

    F82man

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    On second thought, would it be possible to machine a block from aluminum as was done on you tube, or would the block be too heavy? What do you think?? That would be one heck of a torquer, and you could run huge props. Don
     
  5. Jan 11, 2010 #25

    pepsi71ocean

    pepsi71ocean

    pepsi71ocean

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South New Jersey
    You have a very interesting idea,

    I would believe that casting a water jack, around a a set of steel cylinder, would weight less then casting an aluminum block. but that is debatable, i'll have to bring it up in a discussion to see what the consensus is.
     
  6. Jan 11, 2010 #26

    pie_row

    pie_row

    pie_row

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    salt lake city Ut
    You changed what you wrote and what you quoted of me after the fact. And so this statement of yours is a lie. And in doing this you abused you moderator privileges.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2011
  7. Jan 14, 2010 #27

    pepsi71ocean

    pepsi71ocean

    pepsi71ocean

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South New Jersey
    Alot of European car makes use V-12's but they are typically of smaller displacement, or of the same size as the American made V-8's.

    in order to get 500 hP often times they must rev to 5,000 rpm which is not a suitable or sustainable rpm for safe use in an aircraft.

    I have found through working on engine that wear and tear is often caused by high rpm, same is the use of superchargers and turbos, its not the boost level, its the rpm that the engine is run at.
     
  8. Jan 19, 2010 #28

    F82man

    F82man

    F82man

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tend to agree with that, thats why the need for a "larger" displacement, longer stroke, lower compression engine would be the ticket. I believe it is a doable project that would only need to turn, say, 3000 to 3500 RPM to get the power out of it. Your idea of 4 valves per cylinder would come in handy at this point. Also, longevity would be increased.

    Some thing to think about: I drove my ford truck to Salt Lake City the other day, and at 78 miles per hour, ( 85 mph by Fillmore!), the triton 5.4 liter was turning about 2450 rpm, for four hours straight, (4 wheel drive). This offers me hope that a "car" engine could be reasonably utilized in an A/C capacity, as long as the RPMs were reasonable. By that I mean, about 2750 low cruise, 3500 top cruise, and 4000 max redline for takeoffs, etc. These numbers can be played with depending on prop size, boost, rpm etc.

    So your original idea of stroking, and supercharging with 4 valve heads is probably the best compromise. NOW, when do we cast our first block? I've got some aluminum cans that I have been saving. (just kidding).

    And your right, most of the destroyed engines that I witnessed drag racing were just that, too many RPMs. Don
     
  9. Jan 20, 2010 #29

    pepsi71ocean

    pepsi71ocean

    pepsi71ocean

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South New Jersey
    Here is what i would do.

    PRSU's

    Both are standard right turning engines, the one that turns back wards uses a Reverse planetary gear set, which would allow the engine to turn right but turn the output shaft in reverse.

    So basically the left engine would be right turning but the propeller would turn left, and it would be not so complicated to do and would still be reliable.

    Engine.

    Increase stroke via crank throw. But maintain rod length, or increase rod length if so desired. The shave up the pistons to lower compression, or raise deck height. The other thing to do would be to add custom heads to increase combustion space, which would allow you to run longer rods without effecting the compression ratio. The longer the crank throw and connection rod the more HP and torque that can be made.

    Then those custom heads, run 4 valves per cylinder run them over a par or equalizer rocker arms and then connect that to push rods.

    mill out a block that allows the crank to be connected at both ends. On the front end have the PRSU casted into the block with a crank idler gear. the rear should be another gear that will move to a larger idler gear that would allow for the attachment of a centerfugal Supercharger.

    This allows you to use a single center cam in the valley, and you can also go with DFI, or EFI is so desired. The Advantages of DI (DFI) is that no ADI system is needed, which allws you to run higher boost levels without the need or worry of Pre detonation. Alternatively attaching a Coolant to air 3 core intercooler will also let your run higher boost levels with lower air temps, denser charge the better your power created.

    (this is why engines often times seem to be very rough when cold, or why you seem to have better power when cold.)

    Ide run magnetos(if your not using an ECM) from the rear crank "distributor gear", where i would also run the oil sump and the fuel pumps respectively. The water pump(s) can be run from there.

    The distributor gear would be very large and would run from the crankshaft to the supercharger gear, the axis on the gear is the camshaft. then mounted around that gear is the addition of oil pumps, alternators, basically it is a geared version of a Serpentine belt.

    By using the gears you can be assured that the timing of any of the variables will not become out of alignment. plus using a oil sump driven off the gear case will avoid reliability issues, and allow for high running oil pressure to fil the oil galleries, among other things.

    Direct fuel injection requires running HPCR, or Rotary Injection. HPCR is the toy of choice today and is the only option for a Direct injection gas engine. Although Rotary injection might be simpler.

    With today's ECM's it would be possible to program in added or retarded timings to comply with the boost levels.

    Obviously this wouldn't be cheap but you would have a really reliable engine that would ultimately have better reliability and longevity then a stock motor.

    Running a large diameter twin stage supercharger would give you unbelieveable control over the motor that i feel would would give you 600 or 800HP in second speed running full boost.
     
  10. Jan 20, 2010 #30

    BobbyZ

    BobbyZ

    BobbyZ

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Cape May NJ USA and Varna Bulgaria
    why not take a look at the bmw v12 and my fav the Mercedes 6 L from the 91-93 s class.At the least you could take some ideas from them if you build your own.
     
  11. Jan 24, 2010 #31

    pepsi71ocean

    pepsi71ocean

    pepsi71ocean

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South New Jersey

    the number of pistons doesn't matter, its the displacement, you can only get so much horsepower from a certain amount of displacement at 3,300 r 3,500Rpm's.


    You need to increase displacement to increase HP at lower rpm's, even supercharged your only getting so much from the motor.
     
  12. Apr 17, 2010 #32

    F82man

    F82man

    F82man

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey pepsi, havent heard from you in a while, all OK? Don
     
  13. Aug 4, 2010 #33

    hangarrat101

    hangarrat101

    hangarrat101

    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kent, South-East England
    has anyone considered looking at the 702 GMC V12? i've heard that parts are difficult to come by, and they're probably very heavybut they produce massive torque at fairly low rpm
     
  14. Jan 10, 2011 #34

    mel

    mel

    mel

    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orange Park Fl
    WOW that 702 V12 GMC engine comes in at 1200 lbs. It uses the 4 V6 heads. Might be able to find some AL heads for it, though havent ever seen or heard of any. Seems like a neet project. Wish you all the luck.

    Mel
     
  15. Mar 1, 2011 #35

    pepsi71ocean

    pepsi71ocean

    pepsi71ocean

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South New Jersey
    hey Don!


    Im back, i have been concentrating on other stuff and have put the whole thing on the back burner.
     
  16. Mar 23, 2012 #36

    dirk_D

    dirk_D

    dirk_D

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Victoria, Australia.
    I cannot understand why somebody would want to put a big iron block motor into a homebuilt. (or 2)
    Less weight means you can make a smaller and leaner structure, 2 big iron blocks will want big wings and big structural design equalling a large hangered aircraft with sluggish characteristics.

    A small alloy motor in a light frame, nimble and fast.
     
  17. Mar 23, 2012 #37

    SVSUSteve

    SVSUSteve

    SVSUSteve

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,889
    Likes Received:
    938
    Location:
    Evansville, Indiana
    It also means lower horsepower which means less speed in most circumstances. I'm designing a twin around two 750 hp (500 hp at cruise) V-8s for long distance traveling since that whole "boring holes in the sky on the weekends" thing never appealed to me all that much. Even with an average drag, we're looking at 340+ knots in cruise at 20,000 ft in a lot more comfort than anything else in the high speed homebuilt market. While someone has their friends crammed like sardines into a Lancair IV-P, we'll be able to pass them by and tell them that they're going to have to peddle faster than that if they want to catch us.

    Wing size depends largely on how far you want to go with it (because of the percentage of weight due to fuel). For the sake of argument, let's say I lost my mind and decided to fly from Indianapolis to Lihue, Hawaii non-stop (just under 4000 miles) in this design. That would be roughly 5280 lbs of fuel (factoring in a reserve), so let's say a MTOW of 9500 lbs for the sake of argument. Assuming a leisurely 55 knot stall speed, one would need 388.48 feet of wing. if we were to cut the fuel load of our aircraft back to reflect the range of some average twin engine aircraft:
    Beech Baron (942 mile range; 5100 lb MTOW; 180 ktas cruise)
    Same range in my design, gives an MTOW of roughly 5000 lbs (including 45 minute reserves) and requires a wing of about 205 square feet compared to the 199 square feet of the Baron.
    Cessna 310 (1000 mile range; 4600 lbs; 178 ktas cruise)
    MTOW: 5100 lbs
    Wing area: 209 square feet
    Piper PA-34-220T (870 mile range; 4750 lbs; 188 knots cruise)
    MTOW: 4900 lbs
    Wing area: 201 square feet (vs. 208.7 for the PA-34-220T)
    King Air C90 (1530 mile range; 10,100 lb MTOW; 226 ktas cruise)
    MTOW: 5710 lbs (remember, my design is for a four seater hence the difference in weight)
    Wing area: 233 square feet

    If someone is willing to pay through the nose for gas to fuel a plane that they spent tens of thousands of US dollars (if not a hundred thousand for something with above average performance), I don't honestly understand why they aren't going to hangar it. Around here, hail, high winds and tornadoes are too frequent to make tying something I spent years designing and building outside where it is more likely to get damaged seem like a good approach.

    Plus, for twin engine aircraft, it's going to be pretty uncommon to see them (no matter how small) kept outside when they are not being flown regularly.
    What's your definition of sluggish? I will agree if poorly designed an aircraft built around a big block engine will be all the things you mention (and a lot of them are poorly designed to be quite honest). Now, then again, if you're going by the "How good is it at aerobatics?" standard, then probably a twin would be sluggish. However, for those of us who look at more practical performance markers (range, climb rate, cruise speed, payload, etc), then most twins are going to beat out most singles with a few exceptions (and usually those become less desirable once you realize that for high cruise speed in a single, you're going to have a very low useful weight or for a long range, you're going to have a much slower aircraft).
     
  18. Mar 24, 2012 #38

    dirk_D

    dirk_D

    dirk_D

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Victoria, Australia.
    A Beech Baron or a King Air puts things into perspective, pepsi mentioned building a P51 replica.
    I would concur an old piper aztec run out of airtime and re registered as an experimental with two lightened V8's would be very do-able.

    If you are building from scratch, wow, big mamma!
     
  19. Mar 25, 2012 #39

    SVSUSteve

    SVSUSteve

    SVSUSteve

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,889
    Likes Received:
    938
    Location:
    Evansville, Indiana
    Good luck with getting the FAA to approve that for anything but flight testing (meaning you couldn't use it like we think of using a standard experimental). There was a modified Twin Commander which crashed in Oklahoma and the company responsible for the modification got into some serious trouble for having flown it with non-essential personnel on board at the time of the crash.

    Designing from scratch and honestly it's not that big of an aircraft. Sure it's not an RV or something like that but it is one of the smallest designs capable of achieving the necessary performance.
     
  20. Aug 24, 2012 #40

    39PackardV10

    39PackardV10

    39PackardV10

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Joplin,MO. USA
    Just ran across your thread as I was doing research on my custom car. I have experience in swaping the Triton V10 and can share some issues that make the swap difficult. As for the engine itself, it is extreemly reliable and durable and efficient for it's size and weight. Parts are not an issue. Many of the parts are identical to the other ford modular parts from the V8 5.8 liter engines. Our biggest and most expensive challenge was the wiring harness and clearing the chip to allow the engine to run without thinking it was stollen. I complicated matters even more by adding a supercharger. FoMoCo was no help in this matter and made it clear, they are not friendly to engine swaps. They would sell us a crate motor but not support a swap, unlike GM as we were accustomed.

    Our choice for the Ford engine was driven also by sound and uniqueness. I have put well over 100,000 miles on these engines in truck applications and they are bullet proof.

    The Triton engine is quite different from the Viper engine as I'm sure you have discovered by now. There is no comparison to the sound. You have made the right choice in that regard. However, as with any engine, the way that you colect the exaust will affect the sound character. Another factor to consider with these engines is the fact that Ford has tuned them to their peak using exaust gas measurements and you will get better performace using as much of the stock exaust components as you can. Also, the torque band is very flat with the Ford. It developes 90% of it's torque early on.

    If you continue in this direction, I will keep close track of your thread. Keywords; 39Packard, V10, triton 1939 Packard Sedan For Sale-39packard.com
     

Share This Page

arrow_white