Marcotte group purchase

BILNEWKIRK · Post by **BILNEWKIRK** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:22 pm

I AM INTERESTED IN A MARCOTTE DRIVE FOR A SUBARU 2.5.

BILL NEWKIRK

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Cowan/Lexy Cameron · Post by **Peter Cowan/Lexy Cameron** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:22 pm

What horsepower will you have and what ratio do you need. Currently Guy has
a M-150 (model is horsepower) in 2.4:1 and a M-200 in 2.04 or 2.2:1. Are
these of interest?
Peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: BILNEWKIRK@aol.com <BILNEWKIRK@aol.com>
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: December 1, 2001 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: Marcotte group purchase

I AM INTERESTED IN A MARCOTTE DRIVE FOR A SUBARU 2.5.

BILL NEWKIRK

** To unsubscribe, send e-mail to list-server@dcsol.com with **
** UNSUBSCRIBE MURPHY-REBEL in the message body on a line by itself **
** Archives located at http://rebel:builder@www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm **
** To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com **

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Kimball · Post by **Mike Kimball** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:22 pm

I'm interested too. I'll need the Chevy V8 version rated for 350-400HP.
I'm assuming that the Dart Aluminum block 350 has a standard bell housing
pattern so that the Marcotte adapter will fit. Does John Worden happen to
know? Oh, and I better make sure it has a provision for a constant speed
prop governor. My preferred ratio is 1.67:1 to keep max engine RPM at 4500,
but I have been toying with building my engine for a bit higher max RPM to
maximize takeoff performance. The 1.96:1 drive would give me an engine
redline of about 5300 RPM assuming I still want to limit the prop to 2700
RPM. I'll have to do a little more investigation on how that may effect
reliability, knowing that I, as the engine operator, can manage the use of
the engine near the redline to maximize reliability. I.e., only for
takeoff, limited to say, three continuous minutes, and such things. Does
the list have any comments about allowing the higher engine redline?

Mike Kimball
SR#044

-----Original Message-----
From: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com [mailto:murphy-rebel@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of
Peter Cowan/Lexy Cameron
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 2:04 PM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: Marcotte group purchase

What horsepower will you have and what ratio do you need. Currently Guy has
a M-150 (model is horsepower) in 2.4:1 and a M-200 in 2.04 or 2.2:1. Are
these of interest?
Peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: BILNEWKIRK@aol.com <BILNEWKIRK@aol.com>
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Date: December 1, 2001 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: Marcotte group purchase

I AM INTERESTED IN A MARCOTTE DRIVE FOR A SUBARU 2.5.

BILL NEWKIRK

** To unsubscribe, send e-mail to list-server@dcsol.com with **
** UNSUBSCRIBE MURPHY-REBEL in the message body on a line by itself **
** Archives located at http://rebel:builder@www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm **
** To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com **

** To unsubscribe, send e-mail to list-server@dcsol.com with **
** UNSUBSCRIBE MURPHY-REBEL in the message body on a line by itself **
** Archives located at http://rebel:builder@www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm **
** To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com **

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Cowan/Lexy Cameron · Post by **Peter Cowan/Lexy Cameron** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:22 pm

I'm interested too. I'll need the Chevy V8 version rated for 350-400HP.
I'm assuming that the Dart Aluminum block 350 has a standard bell housing
pattern so that the Marcotte adapter will fit. Does John Worden happen to
know? Oh, and I better make sure it has a provision for a constant speed
prop governor. My preferred ratio is 1.67:1 to keep max engine RPM at

4500,

but I have been toying with building my engine for a bit higher max RPM to
maximize takeoff performance. The 1.96:1 drive would give me an engine
redline of about 5300 RPM assuming I still want to limit the prop to 2700
RPM. I'll have to do a little more investigation on how that may effect
reliability, knowing that I, as the engine operator, can manage the use of
the engine near the redline to maximize reliability. I.e., only for
takeoff, limited to say, three continuous minutes, and such things. Does
the list have any comments about allowing the higher engine redline?

Mike Kimball
SR#044

Mike all of Marcotte's larger drives have provision for a constant speed oil
supply.
Is there something magic about the 2700 rpm number? While you and I are
into different engines (and planes) we both will want good take off
performance with relatively slow cruise. To me that says go for as big a
prop as possible and if necessary run it slower. So what is wrong with, say,
a 2400 max rpm? There have been lots of aircraft that had max prop rpm less
than that. No one has offered any data that says it is "bad" to design for
lower prop rpm unless I've missed something.
Peter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

John Worden · Post by **John Worden** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:22 pm

Mike,
The Dart has a standard bellhousing pattern.
You realize that the Marcotte is going to put your prop lower than
Murphy's 540...assuming you hope to have a normal cowl.
I have 7 inches offset between the crankshaft and prop shaft and will
still need a bump on the cowl for my carburetor.
Some of the guys with the replica fighters want more than 7 inches offset.

John

At 03:55 PM 12/1/01, you wrote:

I'm interested too. I'll need the Chevy V8 version rated for 350-400HP.
I'm assuming that the Dart Aluminum block 350 has a standard bell housing
pattern so that the Marcotte adapter will fit. Does John Worden happen to
know? Oh, and I better make sure it has a provision for a constant speed
prop governor. My preferred ratio is 1.67:1 to keep max engine RPM at 4500,
but I have been toying with building my engine for a bit higher max RPM to
maximize takeoff performance. The 1.96:1 drive would give me an engine
redline of about 5300 RPM assuming I still want to limit the prop to 2700
RPM. I'll have to do a little more investigation on how that may effect
reliability, knowing that I, as the engine operator, can manage the use of
the engine near the redline to maximize reliability. I.e., only for
takeoff, limited to say, three continuous minutes, and such things. Does
the list have any comments about allowing the higher engine redline?

Mike Kimball
SR#044

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wayne G. O'Shea · Post by **Wayne G. O'Shea** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:22 pm

I claim to know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about torque curves, gearing and where
(what RPM) to make horsepower with your auto conversions (that's why I take
the easy/proven way out and stick with WWII technology!), but I can offer
that the reason a geared Lycoming outperforms (STOL, not cruise) a direct
drive Lycoming rated at the exact same Horsepower is the fact that it puts
out more torque at the propellor (were it matters) and can turn a larger
prop at a slower speed where it is more efficient, creating more THRUST.
This is also the secret to the radial engine plugging away at slow speed and
spinning a large prop.

If I'm full of sh@# let me know, I've been told before! Just my view on the
gearing issue!

For reference I provide the GSO 480 Lycoming. Take off power is 340 HP at
3400RPM. The prop is a 3 bladed Hartzell that is 96" (8 feet) in diameter
and is only turning 2182 RPM at full power due to the 77:120 gear ratio
(1:1.5584) and you want to see climb!!! Even in an aircraft that weighs
2875lbs empty I see close to 2000FPM, with 2 on board and 66 gallons of
fuel! Cruise is about 125 MPH at 60% (204 HP burning approx.17GPHUS).
Doesn't get much faster at 75%, with about 130 MPH, but really increases
the fuel burn on a supercharged engine.

This probably offers you nothing to go by with your 350 block, but you need
someone (that has been there before NOT THEORY) to determine a gearing that
lets you spin it to a reasonable engine speed (that will allow it to make
good power and remain dependable), while creating sufficient thrust at a low
enough prop speed to remain efficient, without bogging the engine down.
Maybe since you are going auto engine you could throw in the transmission
and shift gears after take off!!!! ;>)

I think you have already done so, but I strongly suggest trying to get Brian
Robinson to tell you the ratio on his drive in the LS1 Seabee. He derated
the Corvette engines HP, so it would last longer and turns it slower than it
would in the car also. The climb of this (pusher) aircraft is nothing short
of AMAZING!! Cruise is a lot better than the Franklin powered "bee also, but
of course it should with an extra 100 HP under the cowl!

Regards,
Wayne G. O'Shea
www.irishfield.on.ca

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Cowan/Lexy Cameron" <cowcam@pipcom.com>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Marcotte group purchase

I'm interested too. I'll need the Chevy V8 version rated for 350-400HP.
I'm assuming that the Dart Aluminum block 350 has a standard bell housing
pattern so that the Marcotte adapter will fit. Does John Worden happen

to

know? Oh, and I better make sure it has a provision for a constant speed
prop governor. My preferred ratio is 1.67:1 to keep max engine RPM at
4500,
but I have been toying with building my engine for a bit higher max RPM

to

maximize takeoff performance. The 1.96:1 drive would give me an engine
redline of about 5300 RPM assuming I still want to limit the prop to 2700
RPM. I'll have to do a little more investigation on how that may effect
reliability, knowing that I, as the engine operator, can manage the use

of

the engine near the redline to maximize reliability. I.e., only for
takeoff, limited to say, three continuous minutes, and such things. Does
the list have any comments about allowing the higher engine redline?

Mike Kimball
SR#044
Mike all of Marcotte's larger drives have provision for a constant speed

oil

supply.
Is there something magic about the 2700 rpm number? While you and I are
into different engines (and planes) we both will want good take off
performance with relatively slow cruise. To me that says go for as big a
prop as possible and if necessary run it slower. So what is wrong with,

say,

a 2400 max rpm? There have been lots of aircraft that had max prop rpm

less

than that. No one has offered any data that says it is "bad" to design for
lower prop rpm unless I've missed something.
Peter.

** To unsubscribe, send e-mail to list-server@dcsol.com with

**

** UNSUBSCRIBE MURPHY-REBEL in the message body on a line by itself

**

** Archives located at http://rebel:builder@www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm

**

** To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

**

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

John Worden · Post by **John Worden** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:22 pm

I checked my Contact! issue #59 with the article by Brian Robinson.
He says he is using a 1.7:1 ratio and a 2 inch chain. He claims that Fred
Geschwender
convinced him to build his own redrive since Fred's unit was too short.
He does not say what diameter prop he is swinging but he does say that
it is a Hartzell with a max speed of 2600. It would still be good to talk
to Brian now that he has experience with this ratio.
Brian's phone number is 705-374-4347

I have to agree with Wayne about lower prop speed on the larger props.
Most props that are spinning at 2700 are not much bigger than 72 inches.
John

At 07:28 PM 12/1/01, you wrote:

I claim to know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about torque curves, gearing and where
(what RPM) to make horsepower with your auto conversions (that's why I take
the easy/proven way out and stick with WWII technology!), but I can offer
that the reason a geared Lycoming outperforms (STOL, not cruise) a direct
drive Lycoming rated at the exact same Horsepower is the fact that it puts
out more torque at the propellor (were it matters) and can turn a larger
prop at a slower speed where it is more efficient, creating more THRUST.
This is also the secret to the radial engine plugging away at slow speed and
spinning a large prop.

If I'm full of sh@# let me know, I've been told before! Just my view on the
gearing issue!

For reference I provide the GSO 480 Lycoming. Take off power is 340 HP at
3400RPM. The prop is a 3 bladed Hartzell that is 96" (8 feet) in diameter
and is only turning 2182 RPM at full power due to the 77:120 gear ratio
(1:1.5584) and you want to see climb!!! Even in an aircraft that weighs
2875lbs empty I see close to 2000FPM, with 2 on board and 66 gallons of
fuel! Cruise is about 125 MPH at 60% (204 HP burning approx.17GPHUS).
Doesn't get much faster at 75%, with about 130 MPH, but really increases
the fuel burn on a supercharged engine.

This probably offers you nothing to go by with your 350 block, but you need
someone (that has been there before NOT THEORY) to determine a gearing that
lets you spin it to a reasonable engine speed (that will allow it to make
good power and remain dependable), while creating sufficient thrust at a low
enough prop speed to remain efficient, without bogging the engine down.
Maybe since you are going auto engine you could throw in the transmission
and shift gears after take off!!!! ;>)

I think you have already done so, but I strongly suggest trying to get Brian
Robinson to tell you the ratio on his drive in the LS1 Seabee. He derated
the Corvette engines HP, so it would last longer and turns it slower than it
would in the car also. The climb of this (pusher) aircraft is nothing short
of AMAZING!! Cruise is a lot better than the Franklin powered "bee also, but
of course it should with an extra 100 HP under the cowl!

Regards,
Wayne G. O'Shea
www.irishfield.on.ca

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Cowan/Lexy Cameron" <cowcam@pipcom.com>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Marcotte group purchase

I'm interested too. I'll need the Chevy V8 version rated for 350-400HP.
I'm assuming that the Dart Aluminum block 350 has a standard bell housing
pattern so that the Marcotte adapter will fit. Does John Worden happen
to
know? Oh, and I better make sure it has a provision for a constant speed
prop governor. My preferred ratio is 1.67:1 to keep max engine RPM at
4500,
but I have been toying with building my engine for a bit higher max RPM
to
maximize takeoff performance. The 1.96:1 drive would give me an engine
redline of about 5300 RPM assuming I still want to limit the prop to 2700
RPM. I'll have to do a little more investigation on how that may effect
reliability, knowing that I, as the engine operator, can manage the use
of
the engine near the redline to maximize reliability. I.e., only for
takeoff, limited to say, three continuous minutes, and such things. Does
the list have any comments about allowing the higher engine redline?

Mike Kimball
SR#044
Mike all of Marcotte's larger drives have provision for a constant speed
oil
supply.
Is there something magic about the 2700 rpm number? While you and I are
into different engines (and planes) we both will want good take off
performance with relatively slow cruise. To me that says go for as big a
prop as possible and if necessary run it slower. So what is wrong with,
say,
a 2400 max rpm? There have been lots of aircraft that had max prop rpm
less
than that. No one has offered any data that says it is "bad" to design for
lower prop rpm unless I've missed something.
Peter.

** To unsubscribe, send e-mail to list-server@dcsol.com with
**
** UNSUBSCRIBE MURPHY-REBEL in the message body on a line by itself
**
** Archives located at http://rebel:builder@www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm
**
** To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
**

** To unsubscribe, send e-mail to list-server@dcsol.com with **
** UNSUBSCRIBE MURPHY-REBEL in the message body on a line by itself **
** Archives located at http://rebel:builder@www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm **
** To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com **

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wayne G. O'Shea · Post by **Wayne G. O'Shea** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:22 pm

Brian is spinning the original 2 blade Hartzel Seabee prop, still hooked up
to go Beta for backing away from the dock, if anyone knows what length they
came with you can go from there. He stayed with the original prop as he had
it already and for the fact that he couldn't go any longer on the Seabee
without putting a large slice in the fuselage boom on the first turn of the
engine! The only book I have says the Franklin spun it at 2500RPM.

Regards,
Wayne G. O'Shea
www.irishfield.on.ca

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Worden" <worden@owt.com>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: Marcotte group purchase

I checked my Contact! issue #59 with the article by Brian Robinson.
He says he is using a 1.7:1 ratio and a 2 inch chain. He claims that Fred
Geschwender
convinced him to build his own redrive since Fred's unit was too short.
He does not say what diameter prop he is swinging but he does say that
it is a Hartzell with a max speed of 2600. It would still be good to talk
to Brian now that he has experience with this ratio.
Brian's phone number is 705-374-4347

I have to agree with Wayne about lower prop speed on the larger props.
Most props that are spinning at 2700 are not much bigger than 72 inches.
John

At 07:28 PM 12/1/01, you wrote:
I claim to know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about torque curves, gearing and where
(what RPM) to make horsepower with your auto conversions (that's why I

take

the easy/proven way out and stick with WWII technology!), but I can offer
that the reason a geared Lycoming outperforms (STOL, not cruise) a direct
drive Lycoming rated at the exact same Horsepower is the fact that it

puts

out more torque at the propellor (were it matters) and can turn a larger
prop at a slower speed where it is more efficient, creating more THRUST.
This is also the secret to the radial engine plugging away at slow speed

and

spinning a large prop.

If I'm full of sh@# let me know, I've been told before! Just my view on

the

gearing issue!

For reference I provide the GSO 480 Lycoming. Take off power is 340 HP at
3400RPM. The prop is a 3 bladed Hartzell that is 96" (8 feet) in diameter
and is only turning 2182 RPM at full power due to the 77:120 gear ratio
(1:1.5584) and you want to see climb!!! Even in an aircraft that weighs
2875lbs empty I see close to 2000FPM, with 2 on board and 66 gallons of
fuel! Cruise is about 125 MPH at 60% (204 HP burning approx.17GPHUS).
Doesn't get much faster at 75%, with about 130 MPH, but really increases
the fuel burn on a supercharged engine.

This probably offers you nothing to go by with your 350 block, but you

need

someone (that has been there before NOT THEORY) to determine a gearing

that

lets you spin it to a reasonable engine speed (that will allow it to make
good power and remain dependable), while creating sufficient thrust at a

low

enough prop speed to remain efficient, without bogging the engine down.
Maybe since you are going auto engine you could throw in the transmission
and shift gears after take off!!!! ;>)

I think you have already done so, but I strongly suggest trying to get

Brian

Robinson to tell you the ratio on his drive in the LS1 Seabee. He derated
the Corvette engines HP, so it would last longer and turns it slower than

it

would in the car also. The climb of this (pusher) aircraft is nothing

short

of AMAZING!! Cruise is a lot better than the Franklin powered "bee also,

but

of course it should with an extra 100 HP under the cowl!

Regards,
Wayne G. O'Shea
www.irishfield.on.ca

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Cowan/Lexy Cameron" <cowcam@pipcom.com>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Marcotte group purchase

350-400HP.

housing

happen

to

speed

at

4500,

RPM

to

engine

2700

effect

use

of

Does

Mike all of Marcotte's larger drives have provision for a constant

speed

oil
supply.
Is there something magic about the 2700 rpm number? While you and I

are

into different engines (and planes) we both will want good take off
performance with relatively slow cruise. To me that says go for as big

a

prop as possible and if necessary run it slower. So what is wrong

with,

say,
a 2400 max rpm? There have been lots of aircraft that had max prop rpm
less
than that. No one has offered any data that says it is "bad" to design

for

lower prop rpm unless I've missed something.
Peter.

** To unsubscribe, send e-mail to list-server@dcsol.com with
**
** UNSUBSCRIBE MURPHY-REBEL in the message body on a line by itself
**
** Archives located at

http://rebel:builder@www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm

**
** To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
**

** To unsubscribe, send e-mail to list-server@dcsol.com with

**

** UNSUBSCRIBE MURPHY-REBEL in the message body on a line by itself

**

** Archives located at http://rebel:builder@www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm

**

** To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

**

** To unsubscribe, send e-mail to list-server@dcsol.com with

**

** UNSUBSCRIBE MURPHY-REBEL in the message body on a line by itself

**

** Archives located at http://rebel:builder@www.dcsol.com:81/default.htm

**

** To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

**

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

BILNEWKIRK · Post by **BILNEWKIRK** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:22 pm

THE 2.5 SHOULD HAVE ABOUT THE SAME 160 hp THAT IT HAD IN THE CAR.
I WOULD THINK THAT THE 2:04 RATIO WOULD PROBABLY BE OKAY.

BILL NEWKIRK

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------