[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Thanks for the prompt return on my email
Don't get me wrong I was not questioning your choice just looking for more
I am giving a hard look at the LS1 motor because I am building an XL.
which can use the extra hp and for the weight I should be able to over come
The reduction unit I like so far is Fred Gerschwender unit and as far as a
track record he has been building unit for auto conversions for 30 years.
You may be interested in an article about Fred and his work.The article is
Aviation March 1997 I found it very interesting.
> From: Al Gietzen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Engine
> Date: Sunday, June 07, 1998 10:09 AM
> >Al You said you have done an in depth search for the right engine for
> >you and have chosen the rotary engine
> Well, I din't use the term "in depth" but I guess it's relative. I looked
> lot of options. No doubt; engine selection, and parameters that make it
> work, is a complex task. But interesting. There are many unknowns, so
> end up making some judgements. Although I intended to, I haven't yet
> to Fred. My understanding is that most of what he's done that's flying
> under the 200+ criteria that I set.
> I also wanted an engine with some proving in airplanes. There are a
> of interesting new multivalve, all-aluminum engines that could be
> choices, but I didn't want to be the first. The rotaries have
> significant numbers of hours in aircraft and race cars and have proven to
> pretty robust.
> The data that I have on the LS1 show a basic engine weight of about 450
> which already exceeds my limit of 400 lb full-up installation. A full
> installation would be over 500 lbs. And we don't need its 345 rated hp.
> Maybe for an XL. And I also have the criteria for a "clean"
> i.e., no distortions of the cowling that mess up air flow to the prop.
> three rotor rotary fits nicely in the cowl (even allowing taking down the
> bumps on the standard cowl). Basic engine wieght is 270 lbs. With
> accessories, reduction unit, cooling and coolant, etc.; still should come
> right about 400lbs. And there is probably some advantage to an engine
> only has four moving parts; with the main moving mass, the rotors, going
> 1/3 the shaft speed.
> I'm pretty sure that with fuel injection you can get better fuel economy
> than an aircraft engine; probably about 10 to 12% better. The engine
> prefers automotive fuel (mogas) so you can get a price break when it's
> available. But it will still be about 10% worse than a good piston
> I'll accept that slightly higher fuel burn for an engine that fits my
> criteria. I'm sure there are other good choices; the proof will be in
> Last, but maybe not least; cost is reasonable. The fully rebuilt engine
> will cost about $10K, including parts and labor and the psru. Add about
> for fuel injection. Another $1000 or so will get you a turbo so you can
> maintain that power up in the flight levels. Not bad.
> Hope this helps. Good luck with your project.
> Al Gietzen