$3500.00

[N801BH]

That may be true with the engines you build, but not mine. I plastic gauge each and every bearing, polish the cranks, cams, and lifter bodies. I use new cylinders from ECI, checking the valve assembly and re-polish what needs to be and every part is washed and dried before assembly.
I pull the filters after the test cell run, and after the test flight, and again at 5 hours, there should never be any metal debris in the filters.

Geez.......

Can to share with us how you seat the rings in during assembly without having any material from the cylinder walls get into the oil.

Now I have lost 100% respect for you..

 

[N801BH]

companies that do that in the aviation industry aren't in the industry long.

plus they were out of 0-200 cranks. I bought this one from a totally different place.

So... you bought a aircraft crankshaft from a company that sold you a BAD crank..

1- You should have mic'ed it before sending it off..

2- I really don't have anything else to say.. I am stunned you even admitted you bought a bad crank from a "aviation industry" company.

 

[Tom-D]

So... you bought a aircraft crankshaft from a company that sold you a BAD crank..

1- You should have mic'ed it before sending it off..

2- I really don't have anything else to say.. I am stunned you even admitted you bought a bad crank from a "aviation industry" company.

Where did you come up with that?

The bad crank came out of an old engine I'm rebuilding.

the New crank is here and has a continental new certification.

really Ben, you should read the whole thing. You seem to be lacking the ability to understand what is written.

 

[Tom-D]

Geez.......

Can to share with us how you seat the rings in during assembly without having any material from the cylinder walls get into the oil.

Now I have lost 100% respect for you..

When was the last time you installed a new set of ECI cylinders? Have you seen the new finish?

 

[N801BH]

When was the last time you installed a new set of ECI cylinders? Have you seen the new finish?

..

I ain't being a smart ass ... I am just hungry..

 

[Skylane81E]

perhaps I misunderstood Ben's solution, but it reminds me of the perpetual machine...I'm a bit skeptical of anyone that offers a free lunch, except if they're trying to sell me something.

Crankcase vacuum is a widely known way to add power in the performance engine world. Hell modern cars come from the factory set up to provide a small amount of vacuum under normal driving conditions.

 

[Sleepingsquirrel]

More work done on the expansion / exhaust strokes. Lost work during the compression / intake strokes. The delta pressure across the piston should come out at a net zero power change.


No lost work on compression. Isn't one piston moving up in the cylinder while one piston is moving down. Same on crankcase side for no net pressure difference. Reducing pressure gives a higher deltaP on power stroke but does not affect the compression stroke. Also reduced windage with lower crankcase pressure..

 

[Jaybird180]

Crankcase vacuum is a widely known way to add power in the performance engine world. Hell modern cars come from the factory set up to provide a small amount of vacuum under normal driving conditions.

Yes, but you can't use a powerplant to make more power from that same powerplant. Current knowledge indicates there will be some system loss, otherwise perpetual motion machine....unless you're saying the vacuum would have otherwise been wasted. I call that a recovery of efficiency instead of power addition. Is that what you mean?

 

[Dr. O]

Jaybird, what would you call a turbo?

Methinks semantics are clouding your vision.

cheers.

denny-o
old engine guy

 

[Jaybird180]

Jaybird, what would you call a turbo?

Methinks semantics are clouding your vision.

cheers.

denny-o
old engine guy

Turbo borrows some mechanical power (or exhaust pressure in the case of supercharger) to power a compressor. The compressor adds burnable O2 and resultant fuel. This adds something to the system vs using what was already available.

Nice try.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

More work done on the expansion / exhaust strokes. Lost work during the compression / intake strokes. The delta pressure across the piston should come out at a net zero power change.


No lost work on compression. Isn't one piston moving up in the cylinder while one piston is moving down. Same on crankcase side for no net pressure difference. Reducing pressure gives a higher deltaP on power stroke but does not affect the compression stroke. Also reduced windage with lower crankcase pressure..

It does reduce windage by reducing the density of the air in the crankcase.

But, if there is no difference on compression because one piston is moving up while another is moving down, then there would be no difference during the power stroke for the same reason.

The work you gain when a piston comes down is lost when it goes up. The net effect is zero. The math is simple.

 

[N801BH]

It does reduce windage by reducing the density of the air in the crankcase.

But, if there is no difference on compression because one piston is moving up while another is moving down, then there would be no difference during the power stroke for the same reason.

The work you gain when a piston comes down is lost when it goes up. The net effect is zero. The math is simple.

 

[Dan Thomas]

It does reduce windage by reducing the density of the air in the crankcase.

But, if there is no difference on compression because one piston is moving up while another is moving down, then there would be no difference during the power stroke for the same reason.

The work you gain when a piston comes down is lost when it goes up. The net effect is zero. The math is simple.

Less windage, and less weight of air to push in and out of the cylinders under the pistons. The gain would be small, but in the racing world it's small gains that win races. Tiny fractions of a second, right?

Dan

 

[Jaybird180]

It does reduce windage by reducing the density of the air in the crankcase.

But, if there is no difference on compression because one piston is moving up while another is moving down, then there would be no difference during the power stroke for the same reason.

The work you gain when a piston comes down is lost when it goes up. The net effect is zero. The math is simple.

You forgot pumping losses and friction. But close enuff

 

[Jaybird180]

Less windage, and less weight of air to push in and out of the cylinders under the pistons. The gain would be small, but in the racing world it's small gains that win races. Tiny fractions of a second, right?

Dan

Yep. Small gains, except if you're American Honda in 2004-2005 in AMA Formula Extreme. Big Advantage

 

[Skylane81E]

Yes, but you can't use a powerplant to make more power from that same powerplant. Current knowledge indicates there will be some system loss, otherwise perpetual motion machine....unless you're saying the vacuum would have otherwise been wasted. I call that a recovery of efficiency instead of power addition. Is that what you mean?

Ok we can dig deeper, the increase in vacuum also aids in ring sealing.

Then if you are building the plane to operate with vacuum you can go to a low tension ring reducing friction.

The performance gains are there, but if you want semantics yes we are just reducing existing losses.

 

[Sac Arrow]

LOL I was thinking the same thing!

I thought I was going crazy too. Looked pretty good to me.