| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Which engine would you prefer??
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:59:57 GMT, Brian Whatcott
wrote: On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:13:32 GMT, (Steven Shelikoff) wrote: /// Used to be, recips used on light aircraft had a mandated overhaul time - for most of them it was 2000 hours. Now its "on condition" like jets.... Comparing auto engine lives: You would like to make 150 thousand miles plus before tearing an auto down (certainly we are making those numbers on a pair of econoboxes we own.) If you averaged 40 mph long term - that would be 3750 hours. Yes, but if the auto engine spent a very high percentage of it's life at, say, 80% max hp, you wouldn't be getting anywhere near those hours. Cruising along at 55 mph, the average auto engine is probably only operating at around 10% load. This is the argument against the efforts to convert auto engines to light aircraft use: the aviation duty is much harder, but then - the irrigation pump engine endurance is impressive: Im not sure just how many of those potential horses are actually pumping water, it's true. I'm not sure it's as much an argument against converting auto engines to light aircraft use as much as it is one that says if you do convert an auto engine to light aircraft use, don't expect it to go as long between overhauls as the same engine in a car. Steve |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Volvo 4.3 Engine Rebuild | General | |||
| Visiting my new engine! | General | |||
| Evinrude FICHT beats out Yamaha in JD Powers survey | General | |||
| Engine News from Genmar | General | |||
| Usage of motoroil | General | |||
Threaded Mode
