PDA

View Full Version : P-51 with a 350 chevy



tex-fan
03-05-2005, 01:20 PM
There is a 2/3 size P 51 Mustang kit that is powered by a 350 chevy. Their web site is; http://www.taskresearch.com/ I was just wondering if anyone here that has had any experience with these folks. :dunno: Airworthiness, reliability, cost etc: I know I'll never afford a real one or ever a Thunder Mustang. But maybe this I could. :1zhelp: Thanks

Unregistered
03-06-2005, 11:31 PM
There is a 2/3 size P 51 Mustang kit that is powered by a 350 chevy. Their web site is; http://www.taskresearch.com/ I was just wondering if anyone here that has had any experience with these folks. :dunno: Airworthiness, reliability, cost etc: I know I'll never afford a real one or ever a Thunder Mustang. But maybe this I could. :1zhelp: Thanks


I don't recall seeing one personally, but it looks like a deal where when you sunk 150,000 dollars into it, then it would be ready to grenade the first Chevy, and you could start on the engine development program to build an engine/reduction gearbox combo that would work longer than a few hours.
This is the usual scenario around the airport when a Chevy/Ford/Take your Car engine pick, engined warbird replica is finished. Then the owner/builder dies of old age, the airplane has flown 7.6 hours in 21 years and the family sells the thing for $10,000, or donates it to a museum for the write off.

Sorry to be so glum, just the usual story. Better to buy a Harmon Rocket, SX -300, GlasiarIII, or something, and paint it in some Mustang scheme and fly it until the wheels fall off. You'd be money and flying fun ahead.

Chris...

Unregistered
03-06-2005, 11:43 PM
Juke, stop. Your killin' me. I'm haven't laughed this hard in a long time. I'm gonna bust a rib.
Sport class airplanes, how many car engines? One. Falconer V-12, derived from a car prodject, even the 45 degree configuration. Tommy Rose put three through his Thunder Mustang before success. Blue Thunder, now able to put out 450 HP on a regular basis. How do you make more power? Super/turbocharging. Whole new ballgame, with lots of failures ahead. Moral to the story, car engines are expensive, the only one worth a darn is the Falconer which has the most money spent on it.
Drag racing engines? They don't work in airplanes. Reason, they only turn 1000 revolutions on the track at the rated power you are reading in the magazine. Airplane engines push big torque smoothly through a reduction gearbox ( see how many work that are available for the car engine conversions, especially at more than 200 hp) to turn the airplanes motivation device. That is a propeller. The whole thing has to run for hours and hours at high power, or else it is no good to nobody.
You are an enthusiastic guy.
Chris...

W J Pearce
03-07-2005, 07:17 PM
Blue Thunder, now able to put out 450 HP on a regular basis.

Chris...

Just wanted to state that Blue Thunder can put out 660 hp at 5050 feet (the elevation of Stead). That number is from the engine that is currently in Blue Thunder, while dynoed at Falconers shop about a year ago. That means that if Parker runs at 100% throttle, he should be putting out that much.

I've seen the print outs and Parker has two throttle settings: off and 100%.

I also agree that making a car engine work WELL in an aviation application is difficult. And while it is not impossible, making is work in an air racing application is much more difficult (I would imagine).

Bill

Unregistered
03-07-2005, 08:22 PM
Whoa, that's pretty good power
Thanks Bill.
chris...

W J Pearce
03-07-2005, 10:45 PM
Thanks Chris....I knew you would response in this way sooner or later. I still want to know what the Westland Whirlwind Rolls Royce Peregrine I engines weighed..those produced 885 hp each. :confused:

rgds,

Juke

Juke,

Aircraft Engines of the World 1945 by Paul Wilkinson has the weight of the Peregrine I as 1106 lbs. (502 kg).

Bill Pearce

AAFO_WSagar
03-08-2005, 11:23 AM
Thank you Michele !

Is there a history of the Falconer for all of us to read ?

rgds,

JukeJuke, I'm sure a "google" search would yeild a large amount of information on Ryan Falconer and his engines... using the search feature we installed on the site (it's on most pages, I'm not referring to the one built into the message board) brought up several interesting links, including one story by Mark Kallio from WAY back when we first worked together here on this site.. http://aafo.com/racing/news/98/12-07-98.htm

Pretty interesting read.. Try http://falconerengines.com or something like that for Ryans site..

:dunno:

440_Magnum
03-08-2005, 01:01 PM
Juke, stop. Your killin' me. I'm haven't laughed this hard in a long time. I'm gonna bust a rib.
Sport class airplanes, how many car engines? One. Falconer V-12, derived from a car prodject, even the 45 degree configuration.

You glossed a key point: the Falconer is DERIVED from a big-block Chevy. Its not actually a big-block Chevy (4 too many cylinders for one thing, completely different materials for another). So while some of the "boilerplate" (bore center spacing, etc.) is from the automotive world, its so heavily re-worked as to have very little in common with its automotive ancestor. (And BTW- its a 90-degree engine not 45)




They don't work in airplanes. Reason, they only turn 1000 revolutions on the track at the rated power you are reading in the magazine.


Well, "that depends." NASCAR engines of similar size (5.9 Liters) put out 700 horsepower for order-of 4 hours straight. Still not enough for any reasonable life expectancy in an aircraft, and far too heavy for the power they do put out.

But basically I agree with you- car engines are made for cars. They don't translate well to aircraft in general- the design parameters are optimized for a completely different world. Production car engines are made to run order-of 200,000 miles (which translates to 4000 or more hours) between overhauls, and weight is a viable way to strengthen them for that kind of reliability. I wouldn't put a Lycoming in my '69 Dodge, nor would I suggest putting my Dodge's 440 in a sport plane. Apples, oranges.

Apteryx
03-08-2005, 02:16 PM
Does anybody KNOW, what happened to George Morse's, (no relation to Dave Morss), "Prowler" (I believe it was called). A two place semi-eliptical wing, BEAUTIFUL, original design. (Warbird-esque, but not a copy of anything in perticular). Displayed at Reno, it came with a Olds (215) F-85 aluminum block V-8. It WAS to be sold as a kit, and he was fitting it for a 350 aluminum block "race engine". Rumor has it he sold a number of kits, just surprised not to have seen one in the Sport Class, yet....ANY PICTURES OUT THERE, no luck surfing, so far.

Paul

Apteryx
03-08-2005, 02:30 PM
Juke-
If your still living the fantasy, stumbled across a 900hp 3-rotor Wankle, some guy was building for a drag racer. Seems to have disapeared from the link it was on, but you got your power to weight ratio, a little better, dont think you'd have the endurance though. :rolleyes:
Haleys comet, comes to mind...
Piston engines go bang-bang-bang, 900hp Wankles go BOOOOMM.. :eek:

Paul

hattend
03-08-2005, 05:06 PM
Does anybody KNOW, what happened to George Morse's, (no relation to Dave Morss), "Prowler" (I believe it was called). A two place semi-eliptical wing, BEAUTIFUL, original design. (Warbird-esque, but not a copy of anything in perticular). Displayed at Reno, it came with a Olds (215) F-85 aluminum block V-8. It WAS to be sold as a kit, and he was fitting it for a 350 aluminum block "race engine". Rumor has it he sold a number of kits, just surprised not to have seen one in the Sport Class, yet....ANY PICTURES OUT THERE, no luck surfing, so far.

Paul
Here is a link to a story about the Prowler's engine being used in a Skybolt circa 1997:
http://www.steenaero.com/articles_detail.cfm?ArticleID=35

Don

Apteryx
03-08-2005, 08:46 PM
Don-
Thanks, I did stumble accross that one, funny article, talks about developing an engine for an aircraft, and they don't even show a picture, contact, web address, nada. I'm trying to remember the year(s) Prowler was on display, (down by the end of the pit stands). Can't be to much later then '98ish. Heard 'round about, of some trouble getting COMPLETE kits, guys scrambling for parts. Beautiful planform, it would be cool to see on the coarse. (Wish he hadn't named it Prowler, seen all the E6's I'll need to see for a while. Surfing on...
Don't know if George "entered" it, have to dig out the old programs, and check, Thanks, again.
Paul

AirDOGGe
03-08-2005, 10:47 PM
If your still living the fantasy, stumbled across a 900hp 3-rotor Wankle, some guy was building for a drag racer.

It seems that Wankels are ideal for aircraft (lighter, smaller and less vibration than piston designs of equal HP). Too bad Reno air race rules don't allow for them...

They are actually supposed to be pretty reliable under constant power conditions (as it is with planes). It was the constant low-high RPM enviroment of automobiles that gave so many problems with rotor seals on the early Mazdas.


... Seems to have disapeared from the link it was on,

THIS SITE has a link to photos of a 900-hp 3-rotor wankel as used with a ducted-fan, plus many many more links of interest:

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html


.

AirDOGGe
03-08-2005, 10:59 PM
Hmmmm...Maybe due to their small size?

I would think a torquey diesel would be better in a heavy tank, but then again, M-1's have a turbine, so maybe size versus output has something to do with it (just speculating).

Apteryx
03-09-2005, 09:39 AM
Thanks AD-
I Get lost sometimes following links around, that looks like the engine. Can't imagine sustaining 900hp for a race plus join-up, if unlimited. Be interesting if they ever change the rules, or maybe a Rotary class?

Juke-
Good find, I've heard about a push-me, pull-you for a few years now, never saw the project. Interesting, but alas....

Paul

AirDOGGe
03-09-2005, 09:28 PM
No, I didn't see that push/pull airframe before. Looks awesome (I wonder how old the photo is?....Maybe it's another "Mach-buster" ;) )

Here's a 3-view drawing of the same, dated 1976, so it was probably stillborn:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/GARBER-DG1.gif

I take it back. A Google search under "DAVE GARBER" ROTARY came up with this page that says it is (or was) flying.
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/flying.html

Well, wha-do-ya-know? I found some mention of it here at AAFO back in 2002 (scroll down to Lowell's post):
http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/showthread.php?t=1417&page=3

The only other mention I found of it is a page copyrighted 1988-2004 that states that Dave had taken it out of mothballs in the 80's or 90's. It also incorrectly states that he made it in the 80's:



Excerpt from the letter:
Dave Garber built such an airplane in the 1980's and it is now being taken
out of mothballs and refurbished. Dave had some cooling problems and fuel injection computer problems. He has recently made contact with members of the Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter with experience in solving these kinds of problems.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/Increadable-rotary2.txt

Maybe another member here knows more about it? I'd love to hear of it's current status...


-----------------------------


Maybe a pusher is the way to go ?

I don''t know about that. Pushers are great for smooth airflow over the wing, but they all seem to suffer from propeller inefficency from the turbulence of the airflow coming off the wings and fuselage. If someone can find a solution to the turbulence problem, then perhaps so.

Apteryx
03-09-2005, 10:25 PM
AirDOGGE-
Good surfing, d*mn Lowell is amazing, love to see his library. (I had to thin mine out a bit, move some to storage, or start sleeping on magazines). If it's all in his head, I'll be even more in awe.

From a crew standpoint, pushers are GREAT, (leaves most of the ecky stuff, at the back of the airplane, sooo much easier to clean).. :D

So many projects, so few flying...

Paul

King
03-10-2005, 06:10 AM
I don''t know about that. Pushers are great for smooth airflow over the wing, but they all seem to suffer from propeller inefficency from the turbulence of the airflow coming off the wings and fuselage. If someone can find a solution to the turbulence problem, then perhaps so.

As most of you know, I was Jim Millers crew chief for many years on "Pushy Cat". That airplane was a very efficient and fast aircraft. We suffered in the horsepower area more than anything. Jim liked to perform his own engine work, and never really perfected the engine. In 1990 (I think), we really had the engine dialed in and were running good. The last few years that Jim raced, the horsepower/reliability was down and he did not show well. I had already left the team at that time, so I do not know where the problems were.

Remember one important thing, before "Nemisis" came out, we hardly ever came away from a race with anything lower than second place gold class at all the races we performed at. Says something for the pusher configuration.

AirDOGGe
03-10-2005, 03:52 PM
As most of you know, I was Jim Millers crew chief for many years on "Pushy Cat". That airplane was a very efficient and fast aircraft.

Sounds like PC had a pretty clean airframe. It sure was a pretty bird.

I was sad to never see it take first. I use to root for Pushy Cat all the time in the 80's during formula races. I remember a few times when it was leading in first place (YAY!), only to be eventually overtaken before the race was complete (..bummer..). I really wanted to see it win (I love unconventional aircraft designs).

I seem to recall a second aircraft of that design at Reno at least one year, either on the hardtop or as a photo in the race program. Wasn't there a 2-seater version of Pushy Cat as well as the single?

Also, I don't think I saw all the races it competed in. Did it ever take first place in a competition? Just curious.

-----------------------------------------------------

I've heard of the 337 flying better on the rear engine alone, but I never learned the reason why. I don't believe it was because a rear prop position is a more efficent location in general, but I have no data to go by concerning the Cessna's case. Perhaps the rear prop produced more drag when feathered as the airflow coming around the curved fuselage may have encountered it at an angle in relation to the plane's direction of flight (just guessing) :dunno:

Of course, a rear engine aircraft would be preferred by a ground crew as far as clean-up goes, but I'd hate to have to be a pilot trying to bail-out of one in an emergency (many military rear prop aircraft had systems to blow the propeller off in case such a situation came about).

.

.

Apteryx
03-10-2005, 09:09 PM
I seem to recall a second aircraft of that design at Reno at least one year, either on the hardtop or as a photo in the race program. Wasn't there a 2-seater version of Pushy Cat as well
AirDOOGE-
Bruce Bohannon raced the other single place (Pushy Galore), for several years, the two place version chrashed in 1989 during a heat race, after hitting a dust devil, and losing a wing. Fataly injuring the pilot (Errol Roberson) if memory serves me.
Jim has sadly passed, but he was a great guy, very innovative, (his first version started with a fan shroud, went through several changes).
It was interesting to watch him, neck and neck with a high aspect ratio wing, and slowly lose ground through the turns, but he always hung in there. He will be missed.

Paul

Apteryx
03-10-2005, 10:03 PM
AirDOGGE-
337 is an interesting study. Used to get ex-military, converting in-line to regular multi. Some of the guys flew the turbo-prop conversions, and for nearly doubling the horse power, they gained only a few MPH's, (albeit uping the load). But that twin tail, to many intertsecting surfaces, seems to hold true.

Sidebar, the aft end is what they used on the flying Pinto, if you ever saw that thing...
TWICE AS SCARY... :eek:

Paul

Apteryx
03-10-2005, 10:37 PM
Thread drifting...

Very unique variant of the 337 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/785456m/)

Paul

AirDOGGe
03-11-2005, 03:30 AM
Remember my pusher imagination design; it had an E-seat.

Juke, did you design those? Very nice!

The conventional layout (front prop single) looks to me like it could have a great chance of being a winner. I love the clean design and slick planform.

The twin bears a very small resemblence to the Pond Racer in some areas (maybe that is roughly what Burt would have come up with if Mr. Pond hadn't requested a twin-boom layout for the 2 Nissans ;) )

Wonder if I will ever see an unlimited pusher compete during my lifetime? Seems like there have been many attempts over the decades to produce one.


=========================================


LOL, Apteryx. That has to be the ugliest mod to a 337 I have ever seen. Form over function definitely didn't apply in this case :cool:

(very off-topic). I saw a program not long ago about the pilots who fly 337's south of Florida, looking for rafts of refugees from Cuba for rescue purposes. One plane flew so low while overlooking a raft or boat that he accidentally struck the water and skipped back up, severely bending the front prop in the process.

The only reason he was able to get home was because of the high-mounted rear engine, whose prop didn't touch the water. If he was in most any other general aviation aircraft short of a seaplane, he would have had to ditch. How's that for a 337 sales-pitch? :D



.

King
03-11-2005, 05:34 AM
Sounds like PC had a pretty clean airframe. It sure was a pretty bird.

I was sad to never see it take first. I use to root for Pushy Cat all the time in the 80's during formula races. I remember a few times when it was leading in first place (YAY!), only to be eventually overtaken before the race was complete (..bummer..). I really wanted to see it win (I love unconventional aircraft designs).

I seem to recall a second aircraft of that design at Reno at least one year, either on the hardtop or as a photo in the race program. Wasn't there a 2-seater version of Pushy Cat as well as the single?

Also, I don't think I saw all the races it competed in. Did it ever take first place in a competition? Just curious.

As already posted, the original racer #73 "Texas Gem" was a two place aircraft that became "Puffin" and was lost with Errol at the controls after a overload condition on couse at Reno. "Pushy Galore" was very much like "Pushy Cat" but slightly bigger due to Bruces size.

"Pushy Cat" was a very successful racer outside of Reno. "Pushy Cat" debuted in 1987 at Reno. Jim won the gold race but was penalized for cutting the dreaded scatter pylon. In the first 23 race meets "Pushy Cat" won 23 races, gained 18 second place finishes, and 7 thirds. Few planes over the years have done as well. Same people and racers at all of the races. Reno, for some reason, was just harder for Jim to get first place at, although 1990 was finally the year for Jim and we took home first place gold in Reno.

Apteryx
03-11-2005, 09:48 AM
[QUOTE=AirDOGGE That has to be the ugliest mod to a 337 I have ever seen.
==================================
One plane flew so low while overlooking a raft or boat that he accidentally struck the water and skipped back up, severely bending the front prop in the process.
[/QUOTE]

Drifting on, AiRDOGGE-
The 337 picture said it was usually un-manned, you can see why... :D
==================================
Salt water showers are SOOO envigorating, bet that really got the old heart pumping... :eek:

Paul

Half_Pint_P51
11-20-2005, 12:07 AM
Juke, stop. Your killin' me. I'm haven't laughed this hard in a long time. I'm gonna bust a rib.
Sport class airplanes, how many car engines? One. Falconer V-12, derived from a car prodject, even the 45 degree configuration. Tommy Rose put three through his Thunder Mustang before success. Blue Thunder, now able to put out 450 HP on a regular basis. How do you make more power? Super/turbocharging. Whole new ballgame, with lots of failures ahead. Moral to the story, car engines are expensive, the only one worth a darn is the Falconer which has the most money spent on it.
Drag racing engines? They don't work in airplanes. Reason, they only turn 1000 revolutions on the track at the rated power you are reading in the magazine. Airplane engines push big torque smoothly through a reduction gearbox ( see how many work that are available for the car engine conversions, especially at more than 200 hp) to turn the airplanes motivation device. That is a propeller. The whole thing has to run for hours and hours at high power, or else it is no good to nobody.
You are an enthusiastic guy.
Chris...

Chris.. Your way out of touch :) . I've got a friend with a 2/3 scale Mustang.It's Chevy powered and has 400+ trouble free hours under it's belt and another with a FEW Mustang that has even more hours on it.
There is no secret into building a reliable engine.There is no lack or super duty endurance parts for these auto engines.Like any engine if you overstrain it then it will fail.An alloy SB 400ci chev engine will run all day at 4800 RPM and produce an easy 300+ HP and gobs of torque.
These suckers are even but in boats and do all sorts of endurane runs.
Of course if you want to race then you will need alot more CI then the biggest auto engine can be made into.Cubic Capacity will be the auto engines limit here, but for an experimental homebuilt/ kit.... then I think they have a place.
Will I have one in my mustang??? Sure will :)

CoastieAux
11-20-2005, 06:53 PM
Here you go..

Lowell
11-20-2005, 11:19 PM
I posted the following here in late October 2002 from notes I had on the DG-1:


"...It first flew July 25,1977 and Jane's reported ten test flights by early 1979. Some old published specs were: Length 20' 6", Wingspan 20'0", wing area 52.5 sq. ft., height 5'6" and Gross weight of 2,400 pounds. The last I saw on it was Paul Lamar's article on rotary engines in the February 2002 Sport Aviation where he says Tracy Cook of Real World Solutions is helping Dave Garber get it back in shape. Other old references of note were: Model Aviation, Aug 87 p.74-75; Air Racing Magazine (Werner & Werner Corp.), Winter 74 p. 36-37,42-43; Air Progress, June 75 p.4; Sport Aviation, March 76 p.25-28; Jane's All The World's Aircraft, at least between 1976 and 1979; and Sport Aviation June 1990 p.23 showing color photo of the racer as she sat in the Sun 'n Fun Museum in those days..."



An article by Dave Garber detailing the whole program from initial design to present would be an interesting read to be sure. Does anyone know if there ever was such a thing-maybe in some Florida EAA Chapter newsletter or such?