Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
LS3 Automotive V8 Engine With Auto PSRU's Geared Drive For Aviation Use
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 авг 2017
- WATCH THE FULL VIDEO HERE • AutoPSRU Prop Speed Re...
Auto PSRU's explains how a GM LS1 or LS3 coupled with thier propellor speed reduction unit gearbox works in an aircraft. This engine is an ideal choice for its power torque and low maintenance. Automotive engines have long been used in homebuilt, light sport and expiremental aircraft. In 2013 the FAA approved the use of the GM LS3 on the Cessna 172. The LS3 is a GenIV SBC that was used in Corvettes and Camaros. It is an all aluminum block and heads that produces over 400hp in stock form. Filmed at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2017.
trace aircraft engines, orenda aircraft engines,
#lsswap #lsxswap #ls1 #ls3
Seen this for a few years on a test stand, never an airplane. When they get at least 6 flying with 8,000 total fleet flight hours with real world numbers then I'd be interested.
We videoed a presentation of the AutoPSRU Geared Drive at our local EAA Chapters meeting. Very interesting!
Love to see that set up in a 3/4 scale war bird.
That pump they're using to oil the reduction gear is the same one that Detroit Diesel used on their old two cycle engines . I've only seen a couple fail .
Can't the cowling and frame be modified to put the radiator(s) under the gearbox?
What would be the tbo on this engine ?
how much does the LS3 engine weigh?
Hello...need to talk about our project in W.I.G. Using same engine. TQ
Interesting exaust manifold. Looks like a simple, lightweight welded one. An exaust manifold with more complex shape might offer better scavenging and performance though.
The camshaft timing for this engine might not benefit from longer exhaust tubes. You need a mild overlap cam in order to get a worthwhile 10% or bigger benefit.
So start it up and let's see it run!
+chris perez lol
Seems like GM would try to get these certified for aircraft. Looks like a much better, cheaper , & more powerful & probably lighter engine than the old design Lycoming or Continentals. Easy to turbocharge & they even use dry sump oiling on some Corvettes now. There doesn't seem to be much room between the radiator & bulkhead on this one for airflow but electric fans are common now & don't take up much space. This does look like a nice setup though.
It's a lot of complexity compared to a Lycoming. Lycoming is a 4 cylinder lawnmower engine. Fixed magneto timing. Air cooling. Will run without any electrical power. Simplicity is good when your ass is on the line.
Perhaps, but it's not supposed to compare to those, but turbine engines. At least I would imagine. The fuel reduction costs as well as lower entry price would make it quite a viable option in the future if they can bring it to market.
Don't see no ford coyote in a plane lmao
J S was 53
With 2 plugs and 2 injectors and all ECU controlled, why not? Everything depends on props and gearbox range of work
Is there nothing that can't be LS swapped
it's okay to for something to play with. Did you notice that you have to fly on pretty much a level plane. Negative g-forces (upside down flying) will run the oiling system dry since the oil pump can't pick it up out of the oilpan and the engine runs dry and destroys it. Did I understand that correctly?
how is this different from the oil system on a O-360 etc? they don't have inverted flight capability unless you order a specific model
Well......let's hear it.
what price this engain we from pakistan brother
I see the intake is on backwards, gets the throttle body out of the way
when you add the gearbox, it probably weighs about what a lycomimg weighs.
intake isn't on backwards, the whole engine is backwards.
Air fuel mixture controls?
It uses the GM mixture system and LS3 throttle body. It controls mixture automatically.
Hi, I like it , I will use 200 hp but I will have in back 200 hp
Anybody know the precise weight of an all alloy LS engine?
An aluminum LS engine is 100 lb, steel engine is 210, completely bare obviously.
Assembled without any accessories, they are around 400 lbs intake to oil pan.
What about the all aluminum 5.3?
What about it?
yeah could be an l33 or lc9 aluminum 5.3 but it has the ls1 style intake & coils.. either way the all mighty ls3 heads are not present on what ever motor this is. just sucks for who ever buys it because they are paying a high dollar price...
yeah could be an aluminum l33 or lc9 5.3 or something like that. does have the ls1 & ls2 style intake & coils though.. but either way the Almighty ls3 heads are not on what ever motor this is. just sucks for who ever is buying it.. because they will pay that crazy ls3 price not knowing any better & get screwed...
A new LS3 Crate Engine cost $7700. at SDparts.com Don't waste your time with a aluminum 5.3
Did he say EAA?
Yes, they are at the annual EAA Convention in Oshkosh, WI.
Anyone know the weight of aluminum LS engine?
The engine probably weighs 450lbs. But with the gear box and radiator it's probably close to 600lbs all running
Thanks, Brent.
The bare engine is 339 pounds, but with all fluids, mount, exhaust and accessories, the FWF package is 580 total, which compares to a FWF IO-540-K setup at 604 pounds.
Why and how does your "prop speed reduction unit" apparently go from "big to small" with "big" being on the crankshaft and "small" being on the prop when driving a smaller gear with a larger one creates a speed INCREASE? And who at General Motors is "signing off" on that automotive block/engine structure/assembly being able to "safely" and "reliably" support all of that "prop speed reduction unit" weight as well as the propeller "thrust" and "torque" clustered onto the back of that engine where a RWD transmission or in the case of Corvettes just a "clutch" housing is normally installed with those additional components also providing the remaining "engine mount(s)" as well as creating the real torque-multiplication and speed reduction for the vehicle so only in "direct drive" and "overdrive" does the "bellhousing" see the "full torque" of the engine? And what do that "propeller speed reduction unit" and the propeller itself do to the engine's dynamic "balance"? Is that "additional clutch" also a "torsional damper" as all manual transmission clutch disks and automatic transmission torque-converters are? And one sufficient to handle both the "harmonics" and "odd-fire" power pulses of a 90-degree V-8? And isn't the compression ratio of an "LS3" pretty "high" for an "aircraft engine" powering a "direct-drive" propeller through a "propeller speed reduction unit" that amounts to a "single-speed transmission" that's only going to require progressively MORE engine torque along with engine speed increases to fly faster and/or higher and with "lightweight" automotive internal components never intended for "heavy-duty" use with "high loads" along with "high speeds" because its a "passenger car" engine rather than a "medium-duty" or even a "light-duty" truck engine?
There's a reason the "LS" engines made for "heavy-duty" use in any and all GM vehicles more "heavy-duty" than 1/2-ton pickups have cast-iron rather than aluminum cylinder blocks and much more "bottom end" strength and way lower compression ratios and way more "robust" cooling and lubrication systems. The aluminum "LS" engines are "passenger car" and/or "light-duty truck/SUV" engines. They're not "heavy-duty" in any way, shape or form. Nor are they designed for "high loads" and/or continuous "medium" loads at "high speeds" and they're certainly not built to be "structural" members of any "powertrain" where they "alone" support and produce all of the weight and torque of themselves and the "transmission" much less while simultaneously being the "connection" between the force propelling the vehicle and the "chassis" of the vehicle itself. In automobiles the engine and transmission/transaxle assembly are nothing but a "power unit" creating torque to power the driving wheels through the differential(s) and axle/CV shafts without being "loaded" by the "chassis" and "drivetrain" axially or laterally in any way, shape or form.
A cylinder block is not a "structural member" in/of the "chassis" and/or "drivetrain" in automotive applications and least of all with the engine block/assembly bolted into the "chassis" and the "drivetrain" bolted onto it "pulling" on it in one direction as the chassis "resists" that "pull". Even agricultural and construction and industrial "vehicles" that use the "engine block" as a "structural member" only do so when the engine is producing torque and sending it to a driving axle pushing forward on the "chassis" and by extension the engine block in a "RWD" or "AWD" situation with the "AWD" front axle being a "front-wheel assist" axle that doesn't have anywhere near "half" the traction and doesn't receive/transfer anywhere near "half" the torque of the entire powertrain. You never see engine blocks as "structural members" in any situation where the driving wheels are "pulling" on the chassis and engine and are "dragging" the entire remainder of the vehicle behind the driving axle along behind it. "Pushing" is always "easier" and "safer" than "pulling" when it comes to making sure heavily-loaded and/or high-torque/traction vehicles are powered because all "structures" consisting of many bolted-together parts/components with many "joints" along that structure and "power" only or mainly at one end are stronger in "compression" than in "tension".
Just because there have been a few "successful" V-type liquid-cooled "aero engines" and they have in at least one case a ridiculously overrated and propagandized "reputation" for "performance" from "power" to "reliability" and those "Rolls-Royce Merlin" engines have been the benefactors of WAY more "research and development" into how to "sell" and "promote" their "superiority" AFTER THE FACT than they ever had put into them by the "OEM" back when they were being "designed" and "developed" to "compete" with air-cooled OHV radial "aero engines" doesn't mean ANY V-type liquid-cooled ENGINE least of an a light-duty if "high-performance" passenger car engine is remotely suitable for "aero engine" use and least of all one that is all but "unknown" in the "industrial" world/markets unlike its REAL small-block Chevy "ancestors" which have been and continue to be used in LOTS of "heavy-duty" applications from irrigation engines to agricultural engines in Massey-Ferguson combines (John Deere used "Chevy" inline 6-cylinders while Massey used an "industrial" version of the "327" with "junk" cylinder heads but all the "goodies" in the bottom-end including forged steel cranks and "pink" rods) to "medium-duty" GM straight trucks in the "C40" and "C50" models.
But were STILL never used as a "structural" member of any "chassis" much less to support entirely a "transmission" and with only cobbled together "factory" and "aftermarket" engine mount assemblies to mount the entire engine/transmission "powertrain" in the "chassis" and with very strong cast-iron engine blocks capable of handling "stresses" far, far in excess of what the original SBC "designers" and "engineers" had in mind when they designed the basic "platform" for passenger cars and light trucks back in the early 1950s.
That there's also no "practical" or apparently "impractical" way to make an "LS" engine with dual and "redundant" ignition systems and "electronic ignition" period much less "distributorless ignition" are both "rare" in/on "aero engines" to the point of being "experimental" at best while "mags" continue to be used due to their "adjustability" and "reliability" and "durability" while "LS" engines don't even have provisions for an "HEI" or any other kind of "mechanically-driven" ignition system is even MORE evidence of how "wrong" for "aero engine" applications any and all "modern" V8 automotive engines are.
Looks like a "stock fraud" in process to me whether or not its "intentional" or not because "converting" V-8 automotive engines to "aero engine" use is not only nothing "new" its been "tried" and has "failed" numerous times in even "recent" history and I'm just a diesel mechanic and lifelong gearhead and "aviation buff" who knows dogshit about the "nuts and bolts" of airplanes in general other than what I've read/heard in various "media" for several decades but I still know that 25-30 years ago some "crop dusters" were playing with the idea of installing Ford big-blocks in "vintage" aircraft with "timed-out" and/or "underpowered" air-cooled radial and/or horizontally-opposed "aero engines" as an "affordable alternative" to "repowering" them with "turbines" or replacing the aircraft altogether with turbine-powered "Ag Tractor" aircraft.
Just like big-block Chevys were being kicked around and even "developed" and "marketed" for "repowering" timed-out "turbines" before the "lightweight" and "high-performance" and best of all "economical" LS aluminum-block automotive engines came along and specifically the "big" aluminum LS engines with enough extra displacement and "power" over the 6.0-liter "truck engines" with cast-iron blocks to make all their "cons" much less visible and seem like much less of a "problem" compared to their supposed "pros".
And what it ALL REALLY BOILS DOWN TO is that just like ALL "innovations" and/or "inventions" and "experimental" aircraft/engines throughout the "history" of "aviation" since the FAA and its "counterparts" came along is that the only sure way to get "approval" for some "experimental" modification to/of existing "certificated" airframes/engines etc is to "prove" their "airworthiness" and "safety" and "reliability" the only way TO prove "airworthiness" but the LAST way any "manufacturer" of some new "modification" seems interested in going about DOING SO. Which is IN THE AIR actually FLYING THEM IN "UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE" AND MAKING THEM "SUCCESSFUL" AS AN "EXPERIMENTAL" AND "UNREGULATED" AND PURE "PRIVATE AIRCRAFT" modification the "inventor(s)" themselves will "bet their lives on" AFTER making significant "investments" into the actual "flying prototypes" and "pre-production" and "production" versions necessary to PROVE "airworthiness".
They're BIG on "testing" on the GROUND and especially these days in "computer models" and plenty willing to "invest" in "mockups" and "marketing" materials as they try to "attract investors" to try to "buy" FAA "approval" FOR THE "AIRWORTHINESS" OF SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN "TESTED" ANYWHERE BUT ON THE GROUND WHILE "SELLING" A LIST OF SUPPOSED "CUSTOMERS" JUST WAITING FOR "FAA APPROVAL" TO HAVE THEIR "EXISTING" AIRCRAFT/ENGINES "MODIFIED" ON A "MONEY IS NO OBJECT" BASIS TO THE "FAA" VIA "FAA OFFICIALS" WHO INVARIABLY WHEN "EXCITED" TO "CERTIFICATE" (ALSO KNOWN AS "CERTIFY") SOME MAJOR "MODIFICATION" TO AN EXISTING AND "CERTIFICATED" AIRCRAFT/ENGINE BASED ON "GROUND TESTS" AND "POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS" ALONE ARE ON SOME LEVEL "INVESTORS" IN THE "MANUFACTURER" OF THE "MODIFICATIONS" OR VERY, VERY GULLIBLE AND BRAINWASHED "OFFICIALS" WHO WERE "HAND-PICKED" BY SAID "MANUFACTURER" SPECIFICALLY FOR THEIR LACK OF "HEALTHY SKEPTICISM" AND BASIC "COMMON SENSE".
I don't think you have enough quotation marks in your text wall.
The only thing that doesn't looks OK for me - cooling system.
+stalex91 why’s that?
Looks like air can't freely flow through radiator. This should be solved somehow.
I betcha the radiator is mounted a whole lot different in an aircraft, this is for Demo purposes only, DUH!
Since automobile engines are water cooled; my fear is that the coolant will freeze under high wind and cold temperatures.
Allison, Rolls Royce Merlins and many other aircraft engines are also water cooled and have worked fantastically, that's why there are "Engineers"
that's not an ls3. its an ls2. its has 243 heads. the ls3 had 823 heads.
how are you able to identify the difference just by looking at them? I thought you had to look at the serial number
+Military Attractions I had noticed the three digit number on the top corner of the cylinder head. it reads 243 the 243 head is a cathedral intake port head. never produced on an ls3 6.2 but was produced on the ls2 6.0 motors 'gto' ls6 5.7 corvette & some 4.8 & 5.3 truck motors. if it was truly an ls3 it would have the 3 digit head casting number 823 or 821 which is a rectangle port head. but the only 100% sure way of verifying if its an ls3 is to look on the front & back of the block it will have 6.2 cast into it in. all these lsx style motors have the actual displacement size numbers cast into the front & back of the block
243s will fit any displacement LS-that being said, that just raises another question, if it is a 6.2 why would they take the rectangle Port heads off, which are far superior than any cathedral port junk.
Let that engine run at 75% of power for 30 days continuous, providing good lubrication and cooling, and if it survives, then we'll ta;k.
The factory has pretty rigorous tests for this when it was developed but with prop on it at altitude testing would be a good idea lol
Fly it for one minute in turbulence where the oil sloshes away from the pickup tube while operating at 4,500rpm and full load without catastrophic engine failure and I still wont buy it.
the OEM tests are far more rigorous than that and NO lycoming has ever been asked to pass that test! the certified engine tests total out at 120 hours
@@TheJustinJ and why is this different to diving over rough roads at speed?
@@philkennedy8683 , turbulence has higher amplitude than a rough road. The oil might fail to go down into the sump because the engine is effectively falling, which GM doesn't test for. It may aerate the hell out of the oil.
----Don't get me wrong, I love these engines and think they're some of the best ever made, but this is a very demanding application that makes the engines serve at higher altitude with less available air.
---I recommend three modifications. 2-gallon dry-sump oiling system. Solid bronze rocker-arm bushings. Roller lifters with solid bronze bushings instead of rollers.
---An aftermarket camshaft 224/238-110 with .540" lift might also be quite useful.
No right place for Test there
"Negative G, forget it". Noted. Not using this.
Heres the deal, the amount of research and development companies like Rolls Royce, Allison or Pratt&Whitney did with aero piston engines during the WW2 period, blows any of this back yard stuff away. The maximum amount of continuous reliable horsepower you can extract from an Aero piston engine is about 0.50 HP per engine cubic inch displacement for air cooled engines, and about 1.0 HP per cubic inch displacement for liquid cooled engines, and anything over about 3400 RPM is not reliable, those are the reasons most car engine conversions don't generally work out, not enough cubic inches, and to much RPM's
That's a function of what the engine is made to do. Horsepower per cubic inch has more to do with cylinder head flow and the stroke. That said, yes, a lot of engine swaps land in unreasonable operating speeds.
You're right, we capped out on technology 80 years ago. We shouldn't even try anything else.
I can't think of a quicker way to devalue a name brand aircraft than to mount a bastardized power plant in its airframe. I was an A&E aircraft Mechanic for thirty years. Unless you are going to scrap it when your done using it , the resale value would be almost zero.
This is for experimental aircraft.
The real concern is using an engine made for cheap mass produced "momentary" horsepower for a quick 5-10 second sprint to highway speeds or down the 1/4, and extended cruising at 1,800rpm and very low load (10% power) as opposed to extended Wide Open 100% power climbs and extended 70% cruising across the country. There is only one reason to install a car engine in an airplane, because it's cheap and available. (Peitenpol air campers in the 1930s).
But this setup is easily the same price as a medium sized Lycoming new, so therefore the idea is to generate double the horsepower for the same dollar. But it cant, because any automotive V8 run at sustained 100% power cannot be compared in reliability to the car it came from (corvettes going 200k miles...) Because in an airplane while climbing for 10-20 minutes at 100% power, and cruising for endless hours at 60-70% means you are running it at circle-track race car levels of abuse, and those guys do a full tear down and rebuild frequently (at least every season or two even for ammeter racing) and those cars often DNF due to engine problems with motors that have only a few dozen to maybe a couple hundred hours on them between overhauls. Putting an LS3 in an Airplane and running what you brung is like driving a Camaro in 4th gear full throttle and 150mph for hundreds of hours and many dozens of trips coast to coast and expecting it not to blow.
And it don't even use a dry sump or oil scavenging setup. You must have a power-plant capable of -2Gs in any airplane because simply flying through turbulence or uncoordinated flight will slosh the oil away from the single point $7.99 GM oil pickup tube... This concept has been tried over and over and it's not any good.
@@TheJustinJ very few lycomings / continentals are dry sumped so that argument is invalid. the OEM tests from GM are far more rigorous than the certifying tests for aircraft. this story you are spreading is 50 years out of date
No engine "wants to run" at the "top speed" of its "torque curve" where torque is "dropping" and there is no "reserve torque" rather than at the "bottom speed" of that "torque curve" where torque is rising with or faster than "engine speed" and most of the horsepower increase is DUE to "increased torque" rather than "increased speed". Horsepower is a function of TORQUE AND ENGINE SPEED with any "horsepower increase" at a given speed requiring a torque increase while "speed increases" can create "horsepower increases" even as torque drops and the actual "power" available to "power" whatever load(s) the engine is connected to is REDUCED. Horsepower is a RATE while TORQUE is an actual "force".
DEEREMEYER1 STOP. USING. QUOTES.
@@whackyjinak4978 Its infuriatingly illegible
You can easily change the camshaft to adjust the torque curve, if you want a lower RPM range you can easily get a camshaft out of one of the 5.3 truck engines. The aftermarket also offers custom cam profiles so you can get whatever you want.
The man was absolutely no good at all at selling his engine to us. Initially it looks like a nice 'Firewall Forward' , but as soon as the man started talking I'd walk away!
He wasn’t trying to sell me anything. I’m an enthusiast of both aircraft and automobiles so I had asked him if he could tell me more about it.
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to LS engines.
LS3 engines are JUNK just like all Chevy crap trucks and cars .
the ford versus chevy argument is OLD, move along... the LS series engines are solid designs from the mid 90's and work well