Paul davenport

Let try that again with the attachment

 

 

 

Paul,If this is your aircraft , you can easily adjust the instrument to give you an almost full scale deflection. I have my EGT's set to 750 degrees and CHT's set to 160 degrees, like this....... Bob[ATTACH=full]54082[/ATTACH]

That’s a mighty fine set of numbers you have there. Yes I am aware that I can set it up a little differently. Went for a fly the other day and what was 127 is now 134, have not done a thing ,maybe ambient was slightly higher. Does yours vary from day to day.?

Yes mine works just as yours does and I just back off a bit , just out of interest what temp are you running cht egt in cruise and what does your egt get to on climb before you back off

Oops also what main jet are you using

 

 

A couple of ideas, only a few cents worth.The main and needle jet work together, not individually as it seems in tuning instructions

Whichever one is restricting flow is keeping lean @ WOT

 

To complicate this the needle moves to block (or not) the needle jet. If the needle isn't moving correctly it can restrict fuel.

 

If you are increasing Main jet without results Id suggest theres issues with needle jet setup. Either needle isn't moving up or its profile isn't working on your setup.

 

Could also be a max fuel flow problem too, could be a fuel restriction dropping level in bowl.

 

And FYI mine has always run leaner at WOT same as you indicate. Chased it for years with no result. I just back off throttle a tiny bit as soon as practical. Its one cylinder in particular so I now reckon its to do with air distribution at high flows through intake and carb.

Yes mine works just as yours does and I just back off a bit , just out of interest what temp are you running cht egt in cruise and what does your egt get to on climb before you back off

 

 

paul, I drilled out my main jet to lower the wide-open egt. It is supposed to be lower than when you close the throttle a bit, but it was higher.So I drilled it out again ( I have a set of number drills) and this reduced the egt a bit but it is still highest on WOT.

I don't dare to drill it out again without knowing more.

I have a mushroom needle and matching needle jet and a 255 main jet. I have a 270 main jet to install next service, but for now I just want to fly it

 

 

Just a update, I tried the round hole intake (rather than NACA)........bugger all difference to EGT. Evened out a tiny bit, mixture has changed to a little richer but hardly noticeable

Depressing isn’t it, when all your efforts are for naught. Hang in there when you find the answer it will have been staring at you . I need to put a larger main jet in to reduce wot egt, but for the moment I am one happy little veggie.

 

 

At last after much tweaking the results are as displayed

 

 

 

Paul ThanksIf I understand you, the Camshaft from RAM is the right solution for the aircraft engin?

Jože

I think given that you are from the North American area they would be your best choice. If you would like to know what other things I did let me know

 

 

If you don't get to the revs where the "hotter" grind works it won't be an improvement and sometimes the exhaust system has to be more exotic to get advantage of the cam. A small amount of "boost" helps and works well at altitude. Nev

On my Subaru it was a very mild cam grind, it still idles smoothly , along with twin Bing carburettors and a larger exhaust I am very happy with its performance. The EA 81 prefers to pull rather than rev, max revs is around 4900 but I cruise at 4/4200 if I am in a hurry 4400 but more revs does not equate to more speed just higher fuel consumption. I have a 72 inch warp drive prop and an AMAX redrive at full noise my prop is doing less than 2500rpm. Apart from the extra weight I am very happy with the combination,good fuel consumption, economical parts and very easy to service

 

 

I have a Subaru EA81 engine, 1800 cc, 80 Hp, a 1982 year. The engine is built on an ultra-light aircraft.Now the engine has a standard camshaft.

I want to increase the power of the engine with a modified cam shaft.

 

Can anyone advise me where can I get such a shaft?

In Australia I used a firm called Crow Cams . Just google it and a few firms will show up. Just a tip as adjusting the cam timing is difficult get a few degrees advance ground into it, I suspect if you use a firm like RAM engines they will supply this as standard. Good luck and keep us informed of your success

 

 

Hi,I have a brand new never fitted Hacman mixture control for a Jabiru 3300 Bing carburetor for sale, I have decided to install a full EFI system instead

All instructions and hardware together in original packaging

 

I Paid $225USD plus shipping $50us

 

Selling for $200AUD

 

Cheers

Is the Hackman still available ?

 

 

While I agree that car engines are good and I would expect them to outlast an aero engine the only time I have had a car engine outlast the car body is when the car has crashed.Although I guess it depends on what you call 'out last', I am assuming that you mean when the engine has a major failure requiring a rebuild?

Out last is just that, last longer than the body. Most people trade their cars long before the motor is any where near worn out ,the body’s on the other hand are starting to feel very tired . Unlike aero engines mantainence is usually poor for some time . But we drift again, where are the alternative auto engine pilots. First hand info

 

 

Oh yeah right, go price some Rotax or Lycoming partsI owned mechanical repair workshops in Logan, a demographic that owned lots of old dungas and never had problems buying parts for anything.

 

Stick with the weight and water cooling hassles for automotive engines, it's the only arguments against.

 

Actually the Fox is within reasonable limits for RAA craft.

Right so the intent of this thread was to talk about the Viking engine (or any automotive engine) and who would fly behind one, not weight or reliability . So I ask the question who has flown behind the Viking and how impressed or not impressed were you? What was the performance, NO here say or second hand info just facts. My Subaru powered Avid is flying well no oil consumption, runs cool, has not needed any mantainence other than servicing, is economical and parts are still available at a reasonable cost. Yes I would fly behind a Honda Viking and I doubt (if my experience is any thing to go by) any mantainence of any major form would be needed for the life of the airframe . Auto engines out last the body of the car they are in .

 

 

The problem of "testing" is that simulation of real-life operating conditions, trying to determine faults, is not the same as real-life operations.The Ford video is pure marketing glitz and show, it doesn't show real-life working conditions, where owners and operators indulge in doing things that engineers and designers never envisaged.

Then there's the effects of corrosion and degradation in cooling systems over time - which is difficult to simulate on a test stand - but which poses a real threat to water-cooled engines. Something like 60% of engine failures are cooling-system related.

 

The smartest manufacturers produce their product and give it to potential end-users to put to work in real-life conditions.

 

Caterpillar used to be famous for giving prototypes of completely new tractors to contractors, to test out and find the faults, "on the job". However, they have stopped that process today, but their engines still develop problems.

 

The Ford/Peugeot "Puma" and "Duratorq" engines are designed with bearing shells that don't have locating tangs to prevent spinning in the block. It's a typical cheap-**** Ford, money-saving measure.

 

Of course, Ford say that there's no need for tangs, the clamping force of the cap holds the shell without any need for a tang.

 

That's all very well, until owners get slack on the oil change regime, or they use an incorrect grade or brand of oil - or they suddenly encounter a vicious and unexpected temperature change (a substantially-below-zero morning in a temperate climate).

 

The end result of these above events is excessive friction between crankshaft journal and bearing - and the bearing commences to spin in the block. Result - engine failure.

 

The simple problem with automotive engines is that they are built to a price regime - and automotive manufacturers are notorious for constantly seeking ways to shave cents off the production cost of every single component.

 

They are driven by bean counters, and 25c saving on an annual production level of say 200,000 components, equates to $50,000 pure profit, that goes straight on the bottom line.

 

GM refused to spend a reported 57 cents on an ignition switch upgrade, because it was deemed economically unacceptable - yet it ended up costing them tens of millions because the fault killed 13 people, and they had to recall 2.6M vehicles.

 

The automotive manufacturers are driven by a "low-cost" culture, the dedicated aircraft engine manufacturers are driven by a safety culture, centred around ensuring the absolute minimum possibility of failure.

Ford and GM are renown for their penny pinching antics, and to a lesser degree so are all other auto makers but the Japanese seem to pull back from this more so it than others building into their motors a reserve of strength and that is most likely the place where the weight is added

 

 

Arent we crossing engines stories here, the reliability of general auto engines and heavy vehicle diesels isnt what we are looking at.BUT I did have some short time with Toyota engine developers who clearly stated Australian duties were the toughest they had encountered worldwide.

Their severe test regimes involved not exceeding 60kmh off any sealed roads.......

 

We are interested in a very small group of auto engines built lightly enough to be applicable to aviation and we see here even some of those are significantly too heavy

 

The "added lightness" is the killer to reliability.

 

This extra weight is especially a problem in aircraft segments with restrictive weight limits. Another good reason for increased MTOW

Spot on JJ these engines are beautifully made and to exacting tolerances, far better than aero engines which despite their built for purpose applications still leave a lot to be desired ,not that they are bad just they could be far better than they are but economy of scale and certification of new technology’s is costly so here we sit. There is light at the end of the tunnel the experimental engines with the ignition and fuel systems is a start

 

 

Written evidence no ,but having owned a dealership and worked for a Japanese auto manufacturer for the past 40 years attending many training sessions I can repeat what we we told of their testing regime as witnessed by them selves at the factory. Engines run at full load for 24 hours ,all parameters recorded,engines then dismantled inspected assembled and re run and tested again, when some thing showed premature wear or failed it was modified and the testing went on. Engines of the same series but turbo charged, undergo a redesign internally beefing up already strong components to take a modest 30% increase in power. I had the opportunity to sit next to a race car engine developer at a the release of a new car who was doing a turbo up grade on the Mazda MX5 and he stated that the engines from the factory have an 80% over engineered power increase factor. I own and fly behind a subaru EA81 motor and a j230 so I have some experience in both fields, people who tell me of what motors can and cannot do usually do not have any practical experience

 

 

No problem at all, all modern engines will run full load for as long as you want. The durability test cycles for modern engines undertaken by most manufacturers now are well beyond the aircraft engine certification standards.This is constantly stated as an anti-automotive engine argument with no evidence to back it up. Some hypocrisy as well because many people who post these falsehoods then go jump into their modern car and enjoy all the fruits of those durability tests.

 

"Oh but I only use 20% of the engine in my driving", yeah but you live in Australia, go to other countries and see how they treat cars.

There seem to be a lot of people who like to say that something won’t work but have not tried tried it. Auto engines are tested to destruction and auto company’s have far bigger budgets than any aero manufacturer . I would fly behind a Honda any day as Bex said it’s just too heavy for your application

 

 

Robert Stanford Tuck would have to be up in the front row

 

 

Good to see you are still at it. It's looking like it's finally assembly time ?

 

 

It will be printed on paper of some kind. The guy next door its his business he should be able to help me with that. Was talking about the measuring issue to a friend of mine. he tells me his somn just got a guy in with some special camera/scanner and they scanned a motorbike frame to they could get all the bits cnc'd..apparently this is accurate in the result in the thou range. It wasnt expensive either he said. So there maybe another avenue for the other skins if its cheap enough and they can get the accuracy. That will make life really easy then. Hope to start on the rear section this weekend

All very interesting can't wait to see it all coming together, keep the pictures coming

 

 

I have used the Subaru cleaner when servicing their engines . Subaru seem to suffer from coking of the valves amongst other things,this cleaner softens and removes this coking providing you use it at every service. It can be verified if you use a vacuum guage and do a before and after test, the after test will show a higher vacuum reading indicating the valve backs have been cleaned and air is flowing more efficiently into the combustion chamber. Customers have commented that their cars ran better after the treatment and used less fuel. I have never had the opportunity to remove the heads after treatment to visually confirm the product, but on balance the customers are happy and that's good for every one. I have soaked a piston in the product and it certainly removed the carbon on it . Tried it on the Victa 2 stroke mower worked on that ,it certainly didnt do any harm

 

 

You got my attention there Paul, about replacing the Bing diaphragm.Mine has never been done and I didn't know about the need. Have I been remiss?

The fuel pump diaphragm worries me too. I tried to get a replacement one but failed, so the existing one has been on there for 15 years.. Should I replace this too? They are flimsy bits of rubber for sure.

Cannot answer the issue on fuel pumps,it is only a auto. pump and they dont seem to give too much trouble in cars .the rubber is some what different in them compared to the carby in that it is reinforced with fabric ,the back up of and electric pump helps out here BUT if it makes you feel at ease replace it

 

 

Interesting. But you can't be sure thats from in flight. Bit like spark plug colour. Its possible it does but it might also be related to what happens during the low speeds of landing and roll, taxi and getting back to the hangar etc.

You are quite right BUT I got out and checked it at the end of the runway befor take off and immediately went for a fly . I only put very small dibs on the cowl for that reason, what would be good I if say 5 of us did the same and we compared pictures. What would be really interesting would be if some one with really good temps did it to see if this is different between ac and why . How about it fellow 230 drivers feeling up to it. Maybe even a tuft test with some one taking pictures in flight from another ac??

 

 

This cowl looks like he has addressed the cowl issue

 

 

 

I have an Avid with a Subaru engine in it an this is what I do for an annual to the motor. Change oil and filter (cut open filter to inspect for metal fragments if you wish) ,.Check and adjust as required tappet clearance ( the clearance will depend on cam used ) flush and change coolant ,check cooling system hoses check carburettor security and if you have bing carbs and the diaphragm has not been changed replace the diaphragms , syc carburettors (if you have 2) ,check engine mounts and mount frame for cracks ,check exhaust system,check /replace spark plugs as required ,inspect air filter . What I find works for me is after I have done all this and before I put cowls on I sit down have a cup of tea a deep breath and look again at all I have done just in case I for got something.