What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Chevy LS conversion.. what are your thoughts?

T

the4ork

Member
v8 conversion? EPI Gen-2? what are your thoughts?

more power and near equal fuel consumption as a 540, with the downside of running a redrive...

what are your thoughts on stuffing one of these in a 'modified rv-4' i.e rocket?

my thoughts are: a. i'd love the extra HP, you cant beat 520 hp and 600ft lbs of tq

*seems* like the fuel injection system is the way to go, but i would HAVE to go fully programable (standalone) unless it comes so already (not sure) this way you are able to lean/richen it out, and can have variabe 'modes' such as take off, cruise, max power, hot day, cold day... you could load tons of maps up that you can switch to...

the re-drive, this is the only thing im weary about... seems like they have had alot of trouble in the past but are getting better (am i right?) but is there a re-drive out there that can handle the 520hp v8 reilably? i know their out there, but reliabilty becomes a question at this hp level?
not only that, what if i decide to do some mods? a low boost turbo setup? 5-6psi? that could easily boost the power up to 600hp


for me, if it wasnt for the re-drive i'd say case closed im going V8...
but unless u guys change my minds drastically i think that will be the route i persue...

one last question...

lets say my 520hp v8 rocket has the same amount of drag as a regular 540 powered rocket (prably wont due to radiators etc...) but how fast *could the rocket go with 505hp? 275-300mph? :eek:

http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-Eng-Gen-2.htm
 
Last edited:
EPI http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-LS-CrateEng.htm has some pages on the LS-7 engine and their thoughts on what internal changes might be required for reliability at this hp level in aircraft. Looks like their new Mark 15 drive would be the trick. Money wise, you'll be close to the IO-540 when you are done but with a lot more power. Weight wise, I'd expect it to weigh 75-100 lbs more than an IO-540. Drag wise, with proper design, you should be able to equal or slightly better an air cooled installation. Delphi currently produces a nice ECU for use on these engines and we are working on one now for the smaller LS engines first.

I think even in atmo form, this engine would move you into untested flutter zones. Might have to do some structural mods to the engine mount pickup structure as well. Turbos would add too much weight.

Find some good prices here: http://www.crateenginedepot.com/store/category.aspx?SID=1&Category_ID=53&Page=2

$13K for the long block, 11K for the drive and lots of misc pieces.

Would look and sound way cool! :) :cool:

Do it!
 
Last edited:
a non intercooled turbo setup wouldnt add any more than 25lbs...

of course this would be my only plane, so turning it into a reno racer wouldnt really be smart, but who knows, it may turn into one someday?

i just went through the epi website and i edited out the LS-7 stuff for the Gen-2 engine related stuff... since the gen2 is more aviation specific and the LS7 is pretty hard to find not to mention expensive plus it still needs work...
 
rv6ejguy said:
EPI http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-LS-CrateEng.htm has some pages on the LS-7 engine and their thoughts on what internal changes might be required for reliability at this hp level in aircraft. Looks like their new Mark 15 drive would be the trick. Money wise, you'll be close to the IO-540 when you are done but with a lot more power. Weight wise, I'd expect it to weigh 75-100 lbs more than an IO-540. Drag wise, with proper design, you should be able to equal or slightly better an air cooled installation. Delphi currently produces a nice ECU for use on these engines and we are working on one now for the smaller LS engines first.

I think even in atmo form, this engine would move you into untested flutter zones. Might have to do some structural mods to the engine mount pickup structure as well. Turbos would add too much weight.

Would look and sound way cool! :) :cool:

Do it!
Click to expand...

is that your SDS powered RV? i've seen that thing in their website a long time ago when i was looking at going standalone on my volkswagen... i went standalone on a 16v turbo VW mkII GTI :) except i went with 034EFI Stage Ic from 034motorsport.com way cool system :)
 
A single turbo alone for this monster would weigh a lot more than 25 lbs with the wastegate and headers. Intercoolers are a must on aircraft, especially with this CR.

Yep I fly the Turbo Subie RV6A.

Sorry to hear you have a 034 on your VW. :rolleyes: ;)

Kidding. Hope it is working well for you.

I'd be going with an LS-6 I think. They are about $9K cheaper.
 
Insurance, call I don't think you will like what they have to say.

If you have limited earning potential and your net worth is very low, you can fly without insurance. The law dogs will leave you alone if there is nothing to recover.



Resale, probably more than 95% of potential buyers will steer away.

If you don't ever plan on selling not a factor. :confused:
 
Alot of things look good on paper. I have seen more auto converstions taken off and a "regular" engine put back on than the other way around. I just have not seen the auto conversions get the # of hours needed to off set the reliability of an aircooled, in line, aircraft engine.

Reliability & resale, it would be a huge mistake. IMHO

Don't start yelling at me, I just call them as I see um.
 
Last edited:
Disintegrate

the4ork said:
one last question...

lets say my 520hp v8 rocket has the same amount of drag as a regular 540 powered rocket (prably wont due to radiators etc...) but how fast *could the rocket go with 505hp? 275-300mph? :eek:

http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-Eng-Gen-2.htm
Click to expand...

I'd be more concerned with the airplane shedding its rudder or elevators. This was seen to happen to a -4 in Australia. Flutter is usually disastrous so be prepared to spend more money yet on Aero engineers to calculate and design into your airplane what it would take to raise the redline to 300 MPH or more.

Good luck,
Pierre
 
I might advise taking a flight in an existing 10, before going forward. I flew in one a month or two ago, and we had four bubba's in the plane, full fuel, and some baggage. By "bubba's" I mean 215-255 lbs big guys.

Now, not only did we have a luxurious amount of room, but the takeoff roll was like a rocket ship. We were off the ground in like 300-375 feet and climbing like a homesick angel.

There is just no need to put a 500+ HP engine on this thing. This fascination with such HP installation seems a bit like installing a brass finish nail with a sledge hammer. In addition, even with the correct (lycoming) engine installed the 10 is a bit nose heavy. Many people find them easier to land, with either a bag of sand or some passengers in the back. If you put the extra 100 lbs...and it will be at least that, on the nose, you may be out of forward CG when landing solo.

It is not the platform to go racing in. It is a four seat family cruiser.

I know the RV6EJ said that you will/may get better drag numbers, but that is simply a dream. The truth is that HE may get close. He may get closer than anyone has so far. But if you got to his website you will discover that there are few people who can match his development and fabrication efforts. You also have physics working against you on the thermal transfer side. What you can count on, based on the overwhelming history is :alot of weight, alot of complexity, reduced resale value, and possibly an impossible to insure airplane. In exchange you will get a slower plane which burns more fuel, or you will simply throw huge HP at it and get a slightly faster plane which burns A LOT more fuel.

Finally, this has been covered many times, and at great length....you WILL NOT GET the same hp at better fuel flow. Energy is never created or destroyed, there is only a certain amount of fire in a gallon of gas. The Lycoming engines, especially in cruise regime already produce specific fuel consumptions (relative to HP) in a range that very few non-stationary engines will match.

I suppose it bears saying that Van's and Lycoming, and Continental are aware that we live in a world where cheap, high quality, high horsepower V8's are available for crate sale. Now, do you think there is a reason why they have not adopted the technology, or partnered with the suppliers?
 
I believe he is putting this in a Rocket not a -10. If he is using the EVO wing he will need some forward weight from what I have been told. I don't think he needs an LS6 or 7. I think he could get plenty of power from an LS2 with a supercharger. I doubt the tail section of a Rocket could handle 300 MPH. I wouldn't want to be the one to test it! I will never push my -10 past Vans Vne. When will I use the full power of the engine? For short field takeoffs at high DA's and probably to see what altitude I can fly to. If I wanted 300MPH I would buy a Titan p-51 and put an LS6 in it. I certainly would try to modify an RV to do it.
 
Guys, he talking about a Rocket, not a -10.

Insurance could be a problem, resale will probably be lower. It will be a ton of work.

A lot of you skeptics ought to subscribe to Contact! magazine. There are several fairly high time (over 500 hours) V8 conversions like Bud Warren's, Robinson's and Gary Spencer's flying very successfully and with awesome performance.

From actual users, fuel burn for most missions is comparable or better than Lycoming, Continental or Franklin engines in the same airframe.

For the cooling drag thing, I only stated that if you do it right, drag can be comparable and perhaps better than on an air cooled installation. As mentioned previously in other threads, historical comparison of several different WW2 airframes with both air and water cooled engines, unquestionably showed the liquid cooled installations as being noticeably faster. I'd be happy to advise people on possible rad layouts.

The Ag and tow users in Oz told me they were sick of the cost and reliability problems with their Lycomings in these applications, just last week having an IO-540 completely fail after swallowing a mag drive and lunching the the cam and case. They were replacing jugs every few hundred hours. The LS engine now has 200 hours on it on their PA25 and so far only a cracked exhaust pipe which was fixed for $150. Smoother, quieter, better climb performance and 3 more tows per hour due to no shock cooling concerns on the rapid descent after release. They are planning to remove the IO-540s and convert 23 more PA25s to LS power.

This stuff is starting to come of age as information is shared. You will only see more and more RVs fitted with auto conversions in the future as historic problem areas are understood and addressed.

I don't think Van's or Lycoming cares about different engine designs for homebuilders. They are selling lots of product already. Van's is in the airframe business primarily and have always adopted a wait and see attitude on other engines. It will be a long time before they endorse new engines. They have no particular reason to use anything else at this time. Since the Rocket is not Van's, no need to worry about that one.

By all means weigh advantages and disadvantages before deciding but do that with current information. Just be aware that this is a LOT of work.
 
Last edited:
Exciting stuff, the proof is in the eating of the Pudding

rv6ejguy said:
A lot of you skeptics ought to subscribe to Contact! magazine. There are several fairly high time (over 500 hours) V8 conversions like Bud Warren's, Robinson's and Gary Spencer's flying very successfully and with awesome performance.
Click to expand...
Have any LS V8's competed in Airventure or Sun-N-Fun or other races (Reno)? I know there's the Lancair IV flying around with a V8.
From actual users, fuel burn for most missions is comparable or better than Lycoming, Continental or Franklin engines in the same airframe.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt you Ross, but I would just like to see some data. When ever a Rotary or Subaru are objectively test flown, fuel burn is usually not better when performance is comparable to a Lyc, and when fuel burn is OK performance is off.
For the cooling drag thing, I only stated that if you do it right, drag can be comparable and perhaps better than on an air cooled installation. As mentioned previously in other threads, historical comparison of several different WW2 airframes with both air and water cooled engines, unquestionably showed the liquid cooled installations as being noticeably faster. I'd be happy to advise people on possible rad layouts.
Click to expand...
I'M LOOKING FORWARD to seeing RV-10's and others using aluminum Chevy V8's fly. Besides cooling drag, weight & CG and hydraulic prop compatibility are also challenges. The fastest WWII planes and ones winning at Reno are air cooled radials. I know the P-51 are fast, but the Jug P-47 Thunderbolt could take more abuse, again big air cooled radial. For water cooling, the airframe design almost has to be made around cooling (radiators).
The Ag and tow users in Oz told me they were sick of the cost and reliability problems with their Lycomings in these applications, just last week having an IO-540 completely fail after swallowing a mag drive and lunching the the cam and case. They were replacing jugs every few hundred hours. The LS engine now has 200 hours on it on their PA25 and so far only a cracked exhaust pipe which was fixed for $150. Smoother, quieter, better climb performance and 3 more tows per hour due to no shock cooling concerns on the rapid descent after release. They are planning to remove the IO-540s and convert 23 more PA25s to LS power.
Click to expand...
How come a debate on the merit of water cooled auto engine conversions comes down to bashing Lycomings? :D :confused: If auto engines in planes are to be great, the argument for them will be made in the future by races won and records set. I wish this glider-port much luck with their PA-25 Pawnee's. Sounds like some cheap IO-540's for sale? :D Frankly I think Lycoming's ROCK! :D Yippee!! Seriously, tow/jump plane horror stories are a valid argument for water cooling, where speed is not a key requirement and shock cooling is. I can tell you tow and jump planes are maintained cheaply with welded cylinders. Cylinder cracks are not normal or expected.
This stuff is starting to come of age as information is shared. You will only see more and more RVs fitted with auto conversions in the future as historic problem areas are understood and addressed.
Click to expand...
I think every one is looking forward to that, and folks like Ross are in the lead in this area.
I don't think Van's or Lycoming cares about different engine designs for homebuilders. They are selling lots of product already. Van's is in the airframe business primarily and have always adopted a wait and see attitude on other engines. It will be a long time before they endorse new engines. They have no particular reason to use anything else at this time. Since the Rocket is not Van's, no need to worry about that one.
Click to expand...
Van the man has written about this many times and you are correct Ross. He adapted the Rotax for the RV-12 and looked at Franklin's and Continentals as well, so he is willing to stray from the boring Lycoming. However the "Flying Dutchman" is a very smart guy, super pragmatic and frugal. He thinks, at this time, auto engines don't offer a big shift in performance, value or reliability, plus weight has always been a challenge. A O-360 new from Mattituck for example, is a bolt in deal, which will give 2000 hours plus of reliable flying over +12 years (iif you don't tow 50 sailplanes a day with your RV). A brand new O-360 is $21,500 (no reduction drive or radiators needed) and an IO-540 brand new $38,500.

The idea of a big, smooth, powerful LS6 (5.7l, 350 cid) V8 crate engine that can make 400 hp at 6,000rpm (max torque 5,000rpm, red-line 6,500rpm) and can be had for $6,300, at one of 7,000 Chevy dealers, is a turn on. It all sounds good, but you'll still need a reduction drive and FI controller and all the custom things to make it work in your plane. Of course you can't expect 400 HP at the prop; running it at 100% or near red line all the time would not be reliable. I think a LS6 could be a reliable 260HP engine. A cheaper solution would be an aluminum 350hp LS1 with a carb. A long block LS1 is on sale for $3,000! I wish I still had my '67 Camaro to drop one into. Keep in mind the out of crate weight for a LS1 is 390lbs! (LS6 weight?) Now add all the accessories, hoses, fluids, reduction drive and so on. It's going to weigh a lot. That is not a trivial or an unimportant consideration. An IO-540 is about 400lbs total, but does not need a reduction drive or radiator'(s) and so on. Hard to compare but there is no doubt the auto engine will weigh a bunch more. Typically when replacing a smaller 4 cyl Lycoming 360's with an auto engine (Rotary/Subaru), the empty weight of the plane is up 100 lbs or more, typically (not always but on average). I suspect with the bigger engine the empty weigh may be 150-200 lbs or more than a IO-540 plane. I'm gussing, but I'd bet you it will be significantly more. Some of the re-drives to handle 400 HP look BIG-N-Heavy. For any disadvantage of air cooling, light weight, system simplicity and efficient cooling with air and simple cowl baffling is an advantage. Not with standing the tow planes cracked cylinder and mag drive example, Lycs are very reliable and cost effective, even when compared to a $6,300 auto engine. There are RV's with 4.3L Chevy V6's and belt drives (Belted Air Power), which do all right, but light weight and low drag is not their thing (yet?). I like their simple belt drive, carb and simple dual points ignition. Here is an interesting article and he touches on why he did not go with a V8: http://www.beltedair.com/KitPlanes.htm (note he mentions the cost of a new Lyc 360 as $27,000 dollars! Pretty cool the price is now about $5,000 less. What is getting cheaper now a days? Lycoming/clones)
By all means weigh advantages and disadvantages before deciding but do that with current information. Just be aware that this is a LOT of work.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a man who has done a lot of (great) work. Hats off to ya Ross. Show all us Lyc-O boys what it's about. I am looking forward to your next engineering marvel. That RV-10 is looking awesome and the engine mount is nice.
 
Last edited:
pierre smith said:
I'd be more concerned with the airplane shedding its rudder or elevators. This was seen to happen to a -4 in Australia. Flutter is usually disastrous so be prepared to spend more money yet on Aero engineers to calculate and design into your airplane what it would take to raise the redline to 300 MPH or more.
Click to expand...
I had never heard of an RV flutter accident before this. There ought to be an accident report, but Google doesn't find anything. I'd appreciate any info on this RV-4 event. Did this really happen, or is it just an unsubstantiated rumour?
 
Kevin Horton said:
I had never heard of an RV flutter accident before this. There ought to be an accident report, but Google doesn't find anything. I'd appreciate any info on this RV-4 event. Did this really happen, or is it just an unsubstantiated rumour?
Click to expand...

There are several people who have gone to the flutter zone but realized they were going to fast and slowed down. The airframe can handle some flutter but if you push it too hard for too long it will come apart just like the recent prototype jet plane that killed both the pilots. I believe there are several posts on this site about flutter.
 
Oz

Kevin Horton said:
I had never heard of an RV flutter accident before this. There ought to be an accident report, but Google doesn't find anything. I'd appreciate any info on this RV-4 event. Did this really happen, or is it just an unsubstantiated rumour?
Click to expand...

Kevin,
It happened in Australia a few months ago. Two guys left for the aerobatic area, way over gross and also a very far aft CG, out of the aft limits.. Seems they fell out of a maneuver and were heading nearly straight down at a very high speed. Witnesses were reported to have seen pieces coming off the airplane before impact. Hopefully some of the Oz guys can elaborate. I did find the Australian equivalent of our NTSB and the accident was/is listed there.

Pierre
 
TSwezey said:
There are several people who have gone to the flutter zone but realized they were going to fast and slowed down. The airframe can handle some flutter but if you push it too hard for too long it will come apart just like the recent prototype jet plane that killed both the pilots. I believe there are several posts on this site about flutter.
Click to expand...
Flutter usually builds so quickly that it leads to an in-flight breakup. I'm not completely convinced that the event that Smokey Ray reported was flutter. It was limited in amplitude, whereas flutter normally increases in amplitude very quickly. It sounded more like a trim tab buzz to me, caused by excessive play. While this could possibly lead to flutter, if the speed went higher, the fact that he is alive to talk about it suggests it probably wasn't flutter.
 
pierre smith said:
Kevin,
It happened in Australia a few months ago. Two guys left for the aerobatic area, way over gross and also a very far aft CG, out of the aft limits.. Seems they fell out of a maneuver and were heading nearly straight down at a very high speed. Witnesses were reported to have seen pieces coming off the airplane before impact. Hopefully some of the Oz guys can elaborate. I did find the Australian equivalent of our NTSB and the accident was/is listed there.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the pointer Pierre. I found the preliminary report from the ATSB. Aircraft descending vertically at high speed. Pieces observed to come off the aircraft. Several tail surfaces found away from the main impact site. This certainly seems to be flutter. It would be interesting to know how fast they were going, but I don't think there is any way to figure that out.
 
Nick Jones flutter

A friend and acquaintance who was very active in the PRPA (Professional race pilot's assoc) in the late sixties/early seventies named Nick Jones designed his own thinner wooden wing for his Cassutt F-1 racer. A new airplane has to demonstrate 6 G's on a recording g-meter and dive to 10% over max straight and level flight, plus demonstrate a roll in both directions. During his dive, the too-limber ailerons fluttered and the wing instantly disintegrated and pieces of mahogany skin left the airplane. Nick managed to bodily break through the gyrating Cassutt canopy, with speed near 300 mph, pulling his ripcord and getting a full canopy at about the height of the powerlines :eek: . Aside from a hernia from opening shock, he was dragged a long way by the Texas desert wind before he collapsed the 'chute.

This was a first person account by Nick to some of us at Reno one year. I had a Cassutt then and was around many aero-type engineers with a lot of discussion about redlines/prop limitations/resonant modes/nodes and such.

This is why I perk up when I read posts like "going 275-300mph" and so on. Leland Snow had one of his earlier S-2 Snow ag airplanes develop aileron flutter during a high speed ( around 150mph) pass on arrival at an airshow in Texas. He told me that he hadn't had time to balance the ailerons yet and the paint was barely dry for the show. He pulled up hard, managing to stop the flutter and land the airplane. The aileron cables had stretched during the flutter and the ailerons were now sagging a couple of inches :eek:

Yes, flutter is real and my suggestion is to believe The Dutchman's airspeed limitations.

'Scuze the long-winded discourse,
Pierre
 
Kevin Horton said:
Flutter usually builds so quickly that it leads to an in-flight breakup. I'm not completely convinced that the event that Smokey Ray reported was flutter. It was limited in amplitude, whereas flutter normally increases in amplitude very quickly. It sounded more like a trim tab buzz to me, caused by excessive play. While this could possibly lead to flutter, if the speed went higher, the fact that he is alive to talk about it suggests it probably wasn't flutter.
Click to expand...

The speed of flutter development and destruction is related to the speed and strength of the plane. RV's are not traveling at 400 mph so the flutter might not be as violent and destructive as a plane going that fast.
 
gmcjetpilot said:
Have any LS V8's competed in Airventure or Sun-N-Fun or other races (Reno)? I know there's the Lancair IV flying around with a V8.
I don't doubt you Ross, but I would just like to see some data. When ever a Rotary or Subaru are objectively test flown, fuel burn is usually not better when performance is comparable to a Lyc, and when fuel burn is OK performance is off.I'M LOOKING FORWARD to seeing RV-10's and others using aluminum Chevy V8's fly. Besides cooling drag, weight & CG and hydraulic prop compatibility are also challenges. The fastest WWII planes and ones winning at Reno are air cooled radials. I know the P-51 are fast, but the Jug P-47 Thunderbolt could take more abuse, again big air cooled radial. For water cooling, the airframe design almost has to be made around cooling (radiators). How come a debate on the merit of water cooled auto engine conversions comes down to bashing Lycomings? :D :confused: If auto engines in planes are to be great, the argument for them will be made in the future by races won and records set. I wish this glider-port much luck with their PA-25 Pawnee's. Sounds like some cheap IO-540's for sale? :D Frankly I think Lycoming's ROCK! :D Yippee!! Seriously, tow/jump plane horror stories are a valid argument for water cooling, where speed is not a key requirement and shock cooling is. I can tell you tow and jump planes are maintained cheaply with welded cylinders. Cylinder cracks are not normal or expected. I think every one is looking forward to that, and folks like Ross are in the lead in this area.Van the man has written about this many times and you are correct Ross. He adapted the Rotax for the RV-12 and looked at Franklin's and Continentals as well, so he is willing to stray from the boring Lycoming. However the "Flying Dutchman" is a very smart guy, super pragmatic and frugal. He thinks, at this time, auto engines don't offer a big shift in performance, value or reliability, plus weight has always been a challenge. A O-360 new from Mattituck for example, is a bolt in deal, which will give 2000 hours plus of reliable flying over +12 years (iif you don't tow 50 sailplanes a day with your RV). A brand new O-360 is $21,500 (no reduction drive or radiators needed) and an IO-540 brand new $38,500.

The idea of a big, smooth, powerful LS6 (5.7l, 350 cid) V8 crate engine that can make 400 hp at 6,000rpm (max torque 5,000rpm, red-line 6,500rpm) and can be had for $6,300, at one of 7,000 Chevy dealers, is a turn on. It all sounds good, but you'll still need a reduction drive and FI controller and all the custom things to make it work in your plane. Of course you can't expect 400 HP at the prop; running it at 100% or near red line all the time would not be reliable. I think a LS6 could be a reliable 260HP engine. A cheaper solution would be an aluminum 350hp LS1 with a carb. A long block LS1 is on sale for $3,000! I wish I still had my '67 Camaro to drop one into. Keep in mind the out of crate weight for a LS1 is 390lbs! (LS6 weight?) Now add all the accessories, hoses, fluids, reduction drive and so on. It's going to weigh a lot. That is not a trivial or an unimportant consideration. An IO-540 is about 400lbs total, but does not need a reduction drive or radiator'(s) and so on. Hard to compare but there is no doubt the auto engine will weigh a bunch more. Typically when replacing a smaller 4 cyl Lycoming 360's with an auto engine (Rotary/Subaru), the empty weight of the plane is up 100 lbs or more, typically (not always but on average). I suspect with the bigger engine the empty weigh may be 150-200 lbs or more than a IO-540 plane. I'm gussing, but I'd bet you it will be significantly more. Some of the re-drives to handle 400 HP look BIG-N-Heavy. For any disadvantage of air cooling, light weight, system simplicity and efficient cooling with air and simple cowl baffling is an advantage. Not with standing the tow planes cracked cylinder and mag drive example, Lycs are very reliable and cost effective, even when compared to a $6,300 auto engine. There are RV's with 4.3L Chevy V6's and belt drives (Belted Air Power), which do all right, but light weight and low drag is not their thing (yet?). I like their simple belt drive, carb and simple dual points ignition. Here is an interesting article and he touches on why he did not go with a V8: http://www.beltedair.com/KitPlanes.htm (note he mentions the cost of a new Lyc 360 as $27,000 dollars! Pretty cool the price is now about $5,000 less. What is getting cheaper now a days? Lycoming/clones)Spoken like a man who has done a lot of (great) work. Hats off to ya Ross. Show all us Lyc-O boys what it's about. I am looking forward to your next engineering marvel. That RV-10 is looking awesome and the engine mount is nice.
Click to expand...

Gary Spencer's Ford powered LongEze has entered and won numerous cross country races. Here is one link: http://www.ez.org/Flyer/0700_03.htm I see some later race speeds in excess of 242mph. Not too shabby for a direct drive auto engine.

Bud Warren's Wheeler Express (SBC) (700+ hours) uses a Hartzell C/S and his drives are capable any using any hydraulic prop. I think the new Variprop will be seen on many more auto conversions because no governor is required on the drive.

I think P51s have won more unlimited races at Reno than any other type. Correct me if I'm wrong someone. Dago Red holds the race lap record at 512 mph set in 2003. The Thunder Mustang holds the absolute piston speed record for naturally aspirated aircraft and the fastest race and qualifying lap in the Sport Class.

I'd dispute that most of the fastest WW2 aircraft were air cooled. While the fastest was the XP47 mainly because it had excellent turbocharging and intercooler technology and 3000hp, the fastest operational aircraft were all liquid cooled.

Your arguments don't hold any water...pun intended.

Not bashing Lycomings, just relaying the experiences of the tow plane guys in Oz and rebuttling the comment made by someone that people were removing auto engines to replace them with aircraft engines. It amazes me that many people think that Lycomings never fail and never need work. The reality is that many do. I know dozens of people who replace jugs, pistons, valves etc. on their engines well before TBO. This is pretty common and one of the reasons people consider alternatives. Cylinder, case cracks are a common occurrence on the higher hp turbo Conti and Lyco engines. Installing the LS engines in the PA25s are as a result of the straight economics of it for this abusive application. A whole engine is the price of 2 jugs for an IO.

It is harder to compete with the weight of the 4 cylinder Lycomings but as the engines become more powerful, the weight gap closes. Bud's 383 weighs 454 lbs. with all accessories except rad and prop. This was lighter than the less powerful twin turbo IO-540 setup normally fitted. The normally aspirated V8s will often be replacing 300-350hp turbocharged IO-540 and IO-550s which are much heavier. Compared to an atmo IO-540, even the LS engines are going to be heavier- no dispute there.

You will not get the rated power from a typical crate motor unless you are willing to spin it up to 6000rpm so people can forget the 400 hp part. I feel the stock LS6 is a solid 300-325hp engine for aircraft use at a reasonable rpm. Warren's drive weighs 63 lbs. EPIs are 10-20 lbs. more depending on model.

Complex cooling systems? No. A look at Warren's simple single rad setup makes this part even less complicated than the typical Lycoming.

The liquid cooled world is changing fast with some smart people applying their talents and proving them by accumulating lots of flight hours now. In many cases, they are making products available for other users. More and more people are choosing auto conversions than ever before- they can't all be dumb.
 
Last edited:
Water cooled?????

IIRC, the big radial powered go-fast-turn-left guys have spray bars for cooling. Quite efficient, but not well suited for long flights.

Going fast is all about HP, which equals heat. At some time as more HP is made, air cooling just isnt up to the task.

Of course, the water is cooled by the air, so all of the engines are air cooled if you want to look at it that way.

Wow, this is fun. Now for the "Jeopardy" answer-----rooster.

Anybody got the question??
 
Mike S said:
IIRC, the big radial powered go-fast-turn-left guys have spray bars for cooling. Quite efficient, but not well suited for long flights.

Going fast is all about HP, which equals heat. At some time as more HP is made, air cooling just isnt up to the task.

Of course, the water is cooled by the air, so all of the engines are air cooled if you want to look at it that way.

Wow, this is fun. Now for the "Jeopardy" answer-----rooster.

Anybody got the question??
Click to expand...

All the fast Unlimiteds use spray bars to keep the engines alive and drag down. Quite right, at higher hp levels, an air cooled engine simply can't compete on a cubic inch/ hp basis which is why Porsche switched to water cooled heads and why it takes 3350 air cooled inches to beat 1650 water cooled ones at Reno.

The facts don't support the superiority of air cooled engines in any type of high specific output racing.

The thread started out asking about the feasibility of installing an LS engine in a Rocket. Certainly feasible, without doubt in my mind, performance would be superior to a 260-300hp IO-540 with a slight weight penalty.
 
Different, Not Better

Ross, that's not really good logic about the Porsche. They also went to rear wheel drive and forward mounted engine and nearly bankrupted the company.
There's nothing to rival the mid-engine air-cooled 911 for weight distribution and handling. Water-cooling makes the car quieter, and probably longer lived due to temperature stability, but most people don't consider the 928 or Boxster to be any great improvement over the 911 and 930.

I sold my 911 to make room in my garage for this airplane project. When I'm done, I'm going to replace it with a 930.
 
Yukon said:
Ross, that's not really good logic about the Porsche. They also went to rear wheel drive and forward mounted engine and nearly bankrupted the company.
There's nothing to rival the mid-engine air-cooled 911 for weight distribution and handling. Water-cooling makes the car quieter, and probably longer lived due to temperature stability, but most people don't consider the 928 or Boxster to be any great improvement over the 911 and 930.

I sold my 911 to make room in my garage for this airplane project. When I'm done, I'm going to replace it with a 930.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm taking race cars here. The once mighty 962s were humbled and defeated in IMSA GTP by first the VG30 powered Nissans and then the all conquering AAR 2.1L Toyotas. There is no comparison in terms of specific output and power density when it comes to air vs. liquid cooled engines. How many air cooled engines are winning in the upper echelons of auto racing today? Zero.

The writing is on the wall in the Sport Class where John Parker's qualifying record stunned the air cooled guys in the class. The Thunder Mustang is clearly a much draggier airframe than the NXTs and Lancairs so it was making a LOT more hp. This is only the beginning of what can be unleashed by the Falconer V12. DG and others are losing pistons and struggling to keep **** and CHTs below critical zones with massive amounts of spray bar water, ADI and reworked fuel systems. I know what the Conti guys are up against, I'm assisting a Sport Class entry at Reno this year. Should be a great race, no matter who wins. :)

In a class where air and liquid cooled engines are the same displacement, ultimately air cooled engines don't stand a chance in equal airframes against liquid cooled ones. The supercharged Falconer V12 in an NXT would easily do a 400mph lap even at 2006 hp levels.

I don't think the LS engines have the physical strength to be competitive in the Sport Class any more but maybe we will see what they can do when David Algie's plane hits the circuit. An LS2 or LS6 would make a fine engine for a Rocket... now if I wasn't still working on the RV10... ;)
 
Last edited:
Sorry Ross, you didn't mention race cars per se in your post, just thought you were pi$$ing on the boxer aircooled motor I so love! I don't think water cooling did anything but make Porshe sports cars heavier and less responsive. Come to think of it, that sounds like Subie power, huh? :)

How's the project coming? Done with the cabin area yet? So far I have made every piece of aluminum on the slider canopy twice, but it's going to be perfect when I am done!
 
A good friend has a 930 with plenty of chassis and engine mods and a proper turbo and intercooler. It is pretty impressive now and he has taken FTD in Solo 1 at the race track numerous times- very fast for a street car. Got respect for these old engines.

I have been awaiting some custom parts to finish off aft of the baggage bay before closing that area in with the top skin. Cabin top is in place and ready to pull a few hundred rivets and tighten the bolts. Maybe by the end of September I'll be trial fitting the wings, then on to the doors. Can't wait! :(

Still lots of work to do.
 
rv6ejguy said:
I have been awaiting some custom parts to finish off aft of the baggage bay before closing that area in with the top skin. Cabin top is in place and ready to pull a few hundred rivets and tighten the bolts. Maybe by the end of September I'll be trial fitting the wings, then on to the doors. Can't wait! :(

Still lots of work to do.
Click to expand...

I still haven't put that last top skin on yet. We have a lot of avionics back there and we aren't sealing it up until it all works. It never seems to end. I am tempted to skip the body work and paint and go fly the thing. Hopefully all our wiring will be finished tomorrow and I can actually start the plane using a key instead of hot wiring it. Plus it doesn't help that it is 100 degrees with 80 to 90 percent humidity. Thank god I put AC in the thing. Another plus for the Chevy LS engine.
 
WoW I got whooped, and it was fun

rv6ejguy said:
Gary Spencer's Ford powered LongEze has entered and won numerous cross country races. Here is one link: http://www.ez.org/Flyer/0700_03.htm I see some later race speeds in excess of 242mph. Not too shabby for a direct drive auto engine.

Bud Warren's Wheeler Express (SBC) (700+ hours) uses a Hartzell C/S and his drives are capable any using any hydraulic prop. I think the new Variprop will be seen on many more auto conversions because no governor is required on the drive.
Click to expand...
Yes that is cool a V8 in a LongEz! Wow! I noticed the speed is right there (but faster by 1 mph) than the IO360 competition, but still numbers and races don't lie. That is a good example. How he stuffed it in that little plane I don't know. I like the idea of a direct drive BIG V8, but than you get into the harmonics of the prop and crank. I saw the Wheeler video on YouTube. Pretty cool. Love to know the numbers, cost, weight, speed, fuel burn compared to say a Lyc IO360 or TCM IO360 which is the standard for that plane. It did sound smooth like a Vee-Eight should.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLjDXM7ZQJM&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln3BUn3rIQQ

I think P51s have won more unlimited races at Reno than any other type. Correct me if I'm wrong someone. Dago Red holds the race record at 507 mph set in 2003. The Thunder Mustang holds the absolute piston speed record for naturally aspirated aircraft and the fastest race and qualifying lap in the Sport Class.
Click to expand...
Yes you are probably right. I thought fastest all time was a Grumman F8F Bearcat @ 528.33 mph (849.55 km/h) 21 August 1989, piston plane record. Normally aspirated I don't know. By the way the Thunder Mustang has a custom V-10 Falconer Engine. It is a race engine for sure, just for the record. How much did they fly it after the record before tear down> hummmm :D

Reno wise, I was just going on all the double row radial Hawker Sea Furys and Bearcats dominating Reno. In 2006, finials, 6 of the top 7, gold unlimited, where air-cooled sea furys, the other was a yak 11, also air cooled. The fastest P-51 was 90 mph slower than the #1 guy in the gold class, "232 September Fury" @ 481 mph. The fast P-51 was "38 Precious Metal", 2nd in the silver class. The poor P-51 V-12's are working so hard to make HP, verses the mass cubic inches of the big Pratt & Whitney R-2800 "Double Wasp" two-row radial. The P-51 is over 1000 cubic inch less displacement. Here are the 2006 reno results.

http://www.airrace.org/2006ResultsDisplay.php

I'd dispute that most of the fastest WW2 aircraft were air cooled. While the fastest was the XP47 mainly because it had excellent turbocharging and intercooler technology and 3000hp, the fastest operational aircraft were all liquid cooled.
Click to expand...
What about the Gloster Meteor and Messerschmitt Me 262. Ha-ha got you, neither are water cooled, they're jets. :rolleyes: You are right again darn it, but I found two water cooled odd ball contenders to the P-51 about the same speed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet

Your arguments don't hold any water...pun intended.
Click to expand...
Ouch I hate it when you are right. Too bad the jets came when they did. Piston development would have gone....... who knows where if it was at the for front of research and development.

Not bashing Lycomings, just relaying the experiences of the tow plane guys in Oz and rebuttling the comment made by someone that people were removing auto engines to replace them with aircraft engines. It amazes me that many people think that Lycomings never fail and never need work. The reality is that many do. I know dozens of people who replace jugs, pistons, valves etc. on their engines well before TBO. This is pretty common and one of the reasons people consider alternatives. Cylinder, case cracks are a common occurrence on the higher hp turbo Conti and Lyco engines. Installing the LS engines in the PA25s are as a result of the straight economics of it for this abusive application. A whole engine is the price of 2 jugs for an IO.

It is harder to compete with the weight of the 4 cylinder Lycomings but as the engines become more powerful, the weight gap closes. Bud's 383 weighs 454 lbs. with all accessories except rad and prop. This was lighter than the less powerful twin turbo IO-540 setup normally fitted. The normally aspirated V8s will often be replacing 300-350hp turbocharged IO-540 and IO-550s which are much heavier. Compared to an atmo IO-540, even the LS engines are going to be heavier- no dispute there.
Click to expand...
I won, I won I won, you said no dispute! :D Yippee. ha-ha Ross good points. I would love to see these big V8 engines more, but not many personal sport planes have use for 350 HP. Yes I said it, they have no use for HP. Well you know what I mean, the airframe needs to be be suitable is size and capacity. Capacity in hauling stuff or handling higher speed and engine weight.

I would disagree 350 hp continuous may be a little much for a chevy 360 cid, however 260 HP, sure. It is amazing Chevy can sell these aluminum block/head Corvette engines for $3000-$6,200. Weight and performance are all a little mysterious to me. Its hard to find data and some just will not tell you what it weighs. I have to subscribe to Contact magazine. Ever since EAA killed the experimenter there is nothing about real experimentation.

You will not get the rated power from a typical crate motor unless you are willing to spin it up to 6000rpm so people can forget the 400 hp part. I feel the stock LS6 is a solid 300-325hp engine for aircraft use at a reasonable rpm. Warren's drive weighs 63 lbs. EPIs are 10-20 lbs. more depending on model.
Click to expand...
63 lbs is way less than I would thought, even 83 lbs. Drives like Real World Solution's units weigh 45 lbs, and that's just for 160/180 HP Wankel's. I assume as HP goes up, gear box weight goes up and 350 HP is a lot. Turbo prop-jets have several 1000's of hp and gear reductions, and they work fine. The only deal with piston engines is all those individual pounding pistons, verses turbine smoothness, which is harder on gear box/reduction drives plus harmonics.

Complex cooling systems? No. A look at Warren's simple single rad setup makes this part even less complicated than the typical Lycoming.

The liquid cooled world is changing fast with some smart people applying their talents and proving them by accumulating lots of flight hours now. In many cases, they are making products available for other users. More and more people are choosing auto conversions than ever before- they can't all be dumb.
Click to expand...
I am a believer, I am a believer, my Lycoming O-360 is for sale, I am an auto engine convert ......... you beat me down.....ha-ha. Here is my new engine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU2elPTJyqA (Now that is an engine)

OK Race for pink slips! Ha-ha not really, but I always wanted to say that. No one called any one dumb Ross, :eek: . The only smart thing I can think to say, after you whipped me in this debate, :D, the airframe and engine have to match, i.e., an airframe made around the engine. Look at the P-51 or those two odd balls I list above, the airframes where made with the engine in mind. Most conversions are replacing an aircooled engine. Again dumb or not, I can't wait to see more (water) cool stuff, especially big V8's and of course your Turbo Subaru RV-10 with P-51 scoop, vaaaaaroooooom. That is going to be cool, water cooled.......(pun intended).
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
Yes you are probably right. I thought fastest all time was a Grumman F8F Bearcat @ 528.33 mph (849.55 km/h) 21 August 1989, piston plane record. Normally aspirated I don't know. By the way the Thunder Mustang has a custom V-10 Falconer Engine. It is a race engine for sure, just for the record. How much did they fly it after the record before tear down> hummmm :D

Reno wise, I was just going on all the double row radial Hawker Sea Furys and Bearcats dominating Reno. In 2006, finials, 6 of the top 7, gold unlimited, where air-cooled sea furys, the other was a yak 11, also air cooled. The fastest P-51 was 90 mph slower than the #1 guy in the gold class, "232 September Fury" @ 481 mph. The fast P-51 was "38 Precious Metal", 2nd in the silver class. The poor P-51 V-12's are working so hard to make HP, verses the mass cubic inches of the big Pratt & Whitney R-2800 "Double Wasp" two-row radial. The P-51 is over 1000 cubic inch less displacement. Here are the 2006 reno results.

http://www.airrace.org/2006ResultsDisplay.php

What about the Gloster Meteor and Messerschmitt Me 262. Ha-ha got you, neither are water cooled, they're jets. :rolleyes: You are right again darn it, but I found two water cooled odd ball contenders to the P-51 about the same speed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet

Ouch I hate it when you are right. Too bad the jets came when they did. Piston development would have gone....... who knows where if it was at the for front of research and development.

I won, I won I won, you said no dispute! :D Yippee. ha-ha Ross good points. I would love to see these big V8 engines more, but not many personal sport planes have use for 350 HP. Yes I said it, they have no use for HP. Well you know what I mean, the airframe needs to be be suitable is size and capacity. Capacity in hauling stuff or handling higher speed and engine weight.

I would disagree 350 hp continuous may be a little much for a chevy 360 cid, however 260 HP, sure. It is amazing Chevy can sell these aluminum block/head Corvette engines for $3000-$6,200. Weight and performance are all a little mysterious to me. Its hard to find data and some just will not tell you what it weighs. I have to subscribe to Contact magazine. Ever since EAA killed the experimenter there is nothing about real experimentation.

63 lbs is way less than I would thought, even 83 lbs. Drives like Real World Solution's units weigh 45 lbs, and that's just for 160/180 HP Wankel's. I assume as HP goes up, gear box weight goes up and 350 HP is a lot. Turbo prop-jets have several 1000's of hp and gear reductions, and they work fine. The only deal with piston engines is all those individual pounding pistons, verses turbine smoothness, which is harder on gear box/reduction drives plus harmonics.

I am a believer, I am a believer, my Lycoming O-360 is for sale, I am an auto engine convert ......... you beat me down.....ha-ha. Here is my new engine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU2elPTJyqA (Now that is an engine)

OK Race for pink slips! Ha-ha not really, but I always wanted to say that. No one called any one dumb Ross, :eek: . The only smart thing I can think to say, after you whipped me in this debate, :D, the airframe and engine have to match, i.e., an airframe made around the engine. Look at the P-51 or those two odd balls I list above, the airframes where made with the engine in mind. Most conversions are replacing an aircooled engine. Again dumb or not, I can't wait to see more (water) cool stuff, especially big V8's and of course your Turbo Subaru RV-10 with P-51 scoop, vaaaaaroooooom. That is going to be cool, water cooled.......(pun intended).
Click to expand...

I salute you George!

The Berkut is a much slicker airframe than the Long Eze so these are not totally comparable. Of course the Ford and the Big Lyco are both 360 cubic inch direct drive engines so this makes a hp/ speed comparison fairly interesting. Spencer's Ford was 13mph faster than the next fastest 360 powered LongEze.

Quite right, Rare Bear holds the world absolute piston speed record and since the FIA requires that these records be broken by 2%, it is a tall order. Dago has been flown to higher speeds than this but not enough to take the new record. (539 mph). By all accounts, the Falconer V12 has been pretty bulletproof at the power levels being run at Reno. In the early days in high hp boat racing, it had some developmental issues which have been solved.

The Merlins are highly stressed to be sure and showing it in the last few years with guru Merlin builder Dwight Thorne out of the business now. They are producing about twice the specific output of the R3350s at 145 inches. But not for long as you rightly say. The Pratt R2800s have generally not been competitive for some time, mostly having be replaced with Wright R3350s and Pratt 4360s.

Falconer is a V12 and has demonstrated fairly sustained hp levels in excess of 1000hp in off shore boat racing. It will be a long time before a Conti or Lyco 550/540 will approach this but I hear the 720 will be allowed now.

The Supermarine Spiteful, Ta 152, ME-109K, Hawker Fury I (Napier Sabre), Hornet, MB MB5, P51H and some others were all capable of speeds in excess of 450mph in 1945. All liquid cooled. The P51H was the fastest operational piston engined aircraft in WW2- 487mph at 25,000 feet using a 2218hp, water injected, Packard Merlin. The fastest air cooled operational fighter was the P47M with a 2800hp R2800- 470mph at 30,000 feet.

We have to remember that a 300-350hp certified engine is rarely rated for this hp continuously. More like 250 in the case of the 550 I think so the V8s are well capable of this and about the same TO power.

Gearbox weight does not go up proportionally with hp but some are heavier than others. The single mesh units should be pretty efficient. One thing often overlooked is that whatever is lost in the drive is often recovered in higher thrust due to better prop efficiency by turning less rpm than direct drive engines.

Auto engines have a ways to go before replacing the Lycoming 320/360 in our smaller RVs in a weight/ performance/ fuel burn contest but they do make more sense in larger airframes.

I get involved in these debates not for the "fun" but to try to change peoples preconceptions and misconceptions about automotive engines and liquid cooled engines. When any of us are faced with the facts on any subject, we are forced to reevaluate our views.

As an engineer, I'm sure you'd enjoy Contact! magazine. Pat Panzera is doing a great job with quality articles, photos, authors and graphics. Very professional and informative. http://www.contactmagazine.com

I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again no doubt. A gracious post George.



:)
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
The only smart thing I can think to say, after you whipped me in this debate, :D, the airframe and engine have to match, i.e., an airframe made around the engine. Look at the P-51 or those two odd balls I list above, the airframes where made with the engine in mind. Most conversions are replacing an aircooled engine. Again dumb or not, I can't wait to see more (water) cool stuff, especially big V8's and of course your Turbo Subaru RV-10 with P-51 scoop, vaaaaaroooooom. That is going to be cool, water cooled.......(pun intended).
Click to expand...


George

I am really enjoying the discussion :) Being a big WW2 aircraft nut I had to say, don't forget the FW TA-152H, which was an offshoot of the FW 190D. The FW 190 being designed around a BMW (copy/derivative of P&W) radial. The annular radiator being a rather elegant solution.

"The Ta 152H was among the fastest piston-engined fighters of the war, capable of speeds up to 755 km/h (472 mph) at 13,500 m (41,000 feet, using the GM-1 boost) and 560 km/h (350 mph) at sea level (using the MW-50 boost). To help it attain this speed it used the MW 50 water-methanol injection system mainly for lower altitudes (up to about 10,000 m or 32,800 ft) and the GM-1 nitrous oxide injection system for higher altitudes, although both systems could be engaged at the same time. The Ta 152 was one of the first aircraft specifically designed to employ a nitrous oxide power boost system."
 
I got to have more COWBELL!

rv6ejguy said:
I get involved in these debates not for the "fun" but to try to change peoples preconceptions and misconceptions about automotive engines and liquid cooled engines. When any of us are faced with the facts on any subject, we are forced to reevaluate our views. :)
Click to expand...
I agree, we need facts. I have always been anti negative propaganda about Lycs s#@k or unsubstantiated or irrelevant auto engine conversion claims like "it's modern", as a fact. Which is where the debate stagnates usually.

I always enjoy your posts because they are based on facts, rather than misconceptions and put downs about air-cooled aircraft engines, which does not help people learn how to convert auto engines to aircraft use. As you know, folks in the past hear exaggerated claims about conversions, from time to time, than a legend is born, "its modern".

To auto engine experimenters credit, most are practical with reasonable expectations. This reminds me, when getting into kit planes, they where exploding onto the market after the sucesses of the first glasair and longEz. New pre-fab kits appeared every week, each one claiming it was better and more fantastic than the next. Unfortunately many where paper planes or never flown prototypes, but that did not stop them from selling kits. Many failed, did not deliver or stranded builders with useless parts and an orphan. I think auto engines went through that phase years ago. Now it's progressed to a point where information dominates and it's more than "It looks good" and "Its modern technology", thanks to folks like you. Many sales pitches where nothing more than it's modern and smooth.

I want to cut through what works and does not, with honest, rational and sober analysis & discussion, which you bring. I have helped on a few auto engine conversions and seen the result, so I'm not clueless. What makes the difference between the typical average auto conversion and the exceptional ones? I don't know but typically the exceptional ones are built by individuals such as your self. I have mixed feeling about the auto engine conversion kits. On one side it kind of stifles individual experimentation, which is the exciting part to me. On the other hand, it has expanded the acceptance. Engine kits certainly kill any delusion you're doing it to save money.

There will always be debate about price, performance, weight, maintenance, reliability and resale, which there should be. Weight & cooling drag are the two big challenges. Weight I see as the Achilles heal and ultimate challenge, which is not a trivial issue, since it affects payload, range and performance, but I've see continuous improvements in all areas.

You are one of the auto conversion proponents that designs/builds/fly's your own conversion, than publishes detailed flight test data, including side-by-side comparisons w/ Lyc powered planes. We need more of that, more facts, like Christopher Walken's said, "I need more cowbell", I need more facts. (reference: to hilarious SNL skit w/ Will Farrell.)

(If you all have not seen this Sat Night Live skit, here it is, "got-ta have more cow bell" is about 5 min long, PG classic with Walkens/Farrell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_PILVkA0MY)

Sincerely, Yes thee Bruce Dickson.......

"I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell, baby!" (I mean more facts.)

If you are going to do something, play a cowbell or build a plane with an auto conversion, give it everything you got baby! Explore the space. :D

Cowbell2.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top