Thanks Wolf. Guess I missed that. So now we have something to look forward to when Mr. Austin hooks them back up.
DB
Printable View
Thanks Wolf. Guess I missed that. So now we have something to look forward to when Mr. Austin hooks them back up.
DB
NOW AT 270 HP @ 8000 RPM WITH MORE AVALIABLE
https://youtu.be/BxykOl63LVI
Finally the problem has been definitely identified. In that attached video you can see and hear the surging beginning in the first minute and half. The small dial control at the bottom of the panel is the steam wheel that allows the fuel flow adjustments on the fly.
You can see the hydraulic pressure and the foot pound readings on the panel. in the second of third minute you can see the adjustments being made to the fuel flow at 4000 the mixture was leaned 30% to clear and as the RPM was increased it was back a 0. Once reaching the 7000 RPM level the mixture had to be enriched up to 20% on the rich side to stop the surging.
Into the second to third minute the load indicator and the EGT indicators auto shut down. Tried to restart the units. The EGT was OK, but the load cell restarted zero at the load that was being applied. You will notice that at idle that it was at near zero. At the very end of the video, you will notice that it read -67, which has to be added to and number seen in the last portion when it was reading in the 270 to 280 lbs, resulting reading 347.
Had almost convinced myself that I had an exhaust block problem instead of fuel. I will admit that with out the dyno and without the fuel injection itself, I would not ever resolved the problem. Not saying that all is resolved. I have always believed that the carbs on the the TIIX were to large. You have to realize that this 5 minute run consumed 5 GALLONS of fuel. That's right 1 gallon per minute. I believe that as the throttles reached a near open position that the velocity of air flow was so low that the Bernoulli effect was near non existent and could not draw fuel, let alone move that volume thru the float valve.
The numbers work out to 260 HP by foot pounds and 270 HP by hydraulic computations @ 8000 RPM. There is still more to be had.
The way it acted at the 8000 mark with increase fuel, I believe that it is starting to have the exhaust blocking the increase in RPM and torque. First order will be to change to the GEN 3 Quincy megaphones.
All of this will have to take place after I repair the dyno. Each time the engine was shut down we sprayed the chain and sprockets with oil. The last run of about 3 minutes stretched the chain so bad that it dropped off one side of the main sprocket. Went to restart and it made a half rev and locked up. Thinking the worst, that the engine had broken internally. Quick check of chain confirmed the next weak link.
I`m glad you figured it out. Not many people would have (me included). 270hp from an inline, WOW! I can`t wait to see what it does on the boat.
DB
Could you identify what the gages in the video are representing? Hard to tell otherwise.
Thanks,
Jeff
Wow ! 270 hp.
Will the Bell megs push it over 300 hp @8200 ?
Another one of OF Christner's dream engines is completed !
From start to finish, very, very impressive, Richard !
Regards,
Paul
WOW!!!! Megs and twin plug heads = 200hp/liter = Koenig territory. What an enviable achievement.
Let`s hope it stays together. Question for the specialists: could harmonics in the long crank cause the
toothed belt and chain failures?
This thread exceeds the suspense of a Raymond Chandler thriller - a surprise on every new page.
Rgds, Wolfgang
I don`t know the math but 270hp from a 100ci engine has to be more hp per cubic inch than the 300hp S3000 from Merc at 153cubes. Then you say that 300hp may be possible! Call it greed or whatever but as a racer/motor builder with a good imagination I can`t help but wonder how much hp could be made from this same design only stretched to something like say 150ci. Simple math say`s that at 270hp or 45hp per cylinder based on 100ci would come to 405hp from 150ci. There have been claims of 400hp from the 153ci Merc by some builders w/o nitrous but I hear 370 is more realistic. 405 from an inline is crazy and falls in no mans land but some day some kid will read this thread and do it.
DB
Kinda hard to bore and stroke a 99 cube motor out to anything meaningful.
Jeff
I guess I don't know what you are trying to say in this post. If you are insinuating that this level of power is not possible you have to remember that this would have to be considered the Indy car engine of outboards. The S3000 is surly capable of producing this kind power per cubic inch. 400+ HP is possible with enough mods. However, what bass boat or weekend hot rod nut would what something this temperamental with limited life and use. The Indy car engines are limited to 132 cubic inches and produce in the 700 HP range. That is 5+ HP per cubic inch. At 12,000 RPM. I wonder what the Indy engine builders of the 50's or 60's would have said to the guy that suggested 700 HP from 132 cubic inches was possible.
The Quincy built Looper engine easily produced 3+ HP per cubic inch.
The numbers seen on the dyno support the 271 HP output. HP = RPM X TORQUE / 5252. I saw 178#, corrected, at 8000 RPM which calculates to 178 X 8000 / 5252 = 271 HP. The torque number seen on my dyno needs to be divided by 2 to reflect the 2:1 chain ratio. Is 300 HP possible? I believe it is because the torque number marched right up while the RPM increased to 8000. Typically the torque will peak and then fall off as the RPM is increased. I did not see that, because I did not allow above 8000 RPM, only drops in torque with the changes in fuel flows. The formula for HP has the RPM and TORQUE at the same level of value. We all know that it is easier to increase RPM than TORQUE.
If I raised the RPM to 9000 with a modest drop in TORQUE of 10# we then have 168 X 9000 / 5252 = 288 HP. Or I could get crazy and raise the RPM to 10,000 and have a drop in TORQUE of 20# and realize 158 X 10000 / 5252 = 301 HP. Even a modest drop of TORQUE of 10# at 9500 RPM results in 168 X 9500 / 5252 = 304 HP.
My challenge to 300 HP will be an increase in RPM being limited by exhaust. Exhaust is the limiting factor of RPM. HP increases until the lose of TORQUE exceeds the increased value of RPM. That is yet to be explored. I remember back in the day before all the servo controls in model airplanes the throttle was a slide valve on the exhaust pipe to choke off the exhaust to limit the RPM. We will explore those possibilities on the next runs with the Gen 3 Quincy extensions. Risks are destruction of the engine. If you are a Jennings believer, then you know that with this bore and stroke, the limit for usable life is 8000 RPM. Then I guess that is not quite true with the numbers being produce with 10,000 RPM V6's.
For now I will try the pipe extensions and rewrite the fuel map. I am sure that at this level of power it will be an acceptable ride for my age.
Repairing dyno currently.
Attachment 63021
Attachment 63022
Current 500CC VRP and GRM PRO engines are claiming 160HP out of 30 cubic inches. It would seem reasonable to assume that Dick's engine could pull at least 2 1/2 to 3HP out of 99 Cubic inches. Possibly the long inline 6 cyl crank would limit the RPM as the VRP and GRM are 4 cyl horizontally opposed and very short and compact, but 300 HP does not seem out of line unless there is something there I am not thinking about.
For heaven's sake don't break this work of art trying to get 300 hp! That would be a real tragedy after all the work you put into it.
I, for one, and damn impressed and would love to see her run on the water.
Jeff
Well said gentlemen!
I would also suggest to optimize the motor and stay away from the full potential 10000 rpm. Yes - drag racers exceed that number, but these are V6s and I really wonder how long the precious Mercury "gold" rings last.
Mr Austin: congratulations for achieving this significant milestone in the lofty world of designing and building this one of a exotic kind beast.
Your fuel consumption numbers are no less impressive: a gallon a minute corresponds to the crossflow Twister II consumption with only some 170hp, as well as the Mercury 2.5 ROS (280XS) with some 280 to 300hp. (I own one - not yet raced - waiting for my STV to come back from the epoxy shop - and yes I am a 70 years old fool).
The next problem will be to find a lower unit which will stay together with the wind-up and let go of the 6 il crank.
Good luck and kind regards, Wolfgang.
Mr Austin maybe I wrote it wrong. My intent was purely complementary and I believe what you post. That's whats wrong with the written word, You can`t see the persons excitement when he speaks. I am in awe of your project and have been from the start and certainly mint no disrespect at all. What you have built and what it has done as well as what it will do is extremely impressive. I guess if I`m guilty of something it would be thinking out loud.
DB
Any gustimate on the parasitic loss from the chain and associated dyno stuff? You may be closer to 300 than you think!
OT: When you say 'Beast', I think of The Beast of Turin.
Four cylinders, 28.5 liters, 1900 RPM, and about the same HP as you're getting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TV2l6TOuGA
Very valid point you are stating here - losses could well be 10 to 15%. What temperature is the oil running at? Is there a defoamer in the oil tank? On the water dynos we used massive surface cooling towers for the water, which could get quite warm when running full load (no computer dynos in the `60s and `70s).
Rgds, Wolfgang
where is the load cell, on the pump or reduction?
I guess that the question of how much parasitic drag there may have been from the dyno is now a real consideration. The issue with the chain failure is because the double row chain sprocket on the driven shaft was not sufficient for the double row heavy duty chain. There were no disclaimers associated with the sprocket specs but it is not a fit. When I initially set up the chain I realized that the chain fit snug but did not realize that the chain was not bottoming in the sprocket roller pockets. I had ordered a heavy duty pre-stressed chain as a replacement only to be disappointed when received and realized that I had received a standard pre-stressed chain. When I installed the original HD chain, I had to shorten by four or five links. I took the new standard chain and laid in a spare sprocket to see how it looked and then took the left over HD chain and tried in the sprocket and realized how tight it felt. I took the links and drove them down into the sprocket. I could pick the sprocket up by just gripping the chain.
Attachment 63131
I then went back to the failed chain and reexamined it looking at the area that would have been pinched by the lack of space between the two sprocket rows of teeth. As can be seen in the pictures that the chain center section links are burned brown and that the link segments adjacent to the teeth are pressure marked from being pinched. All of this heat energy of pulling the chain into and out of the sprocket and coming from the driven sprocket is energy that is not making it to the load sensor at the pump.
Attachment 63132
Attachment 63133
Attachment 63134
The last 2 pics are of the drive and driven sprockets after I changed to the chain drive. You can see in the drive sprocket that the links are tight between the teeth and there is room at the outer sides of the teeth. The driven sprocket I welded from flat sprockets and my turned hub. Dual sprockets that large are not offered and need to be fabricated. That sprocket was welded with the HD chain as a spacing guide and can be seen in the picture that it has the right center to center spacing.
Attachment 63135
Attachment 63136
I guess that the question of how much parasitic drag there may have been from the dyno is now a real consideration. The issue with the chain failure is because the double row chain sprocket on the driven shaft was not sufficient for the double row heavy duty chain. There were no disclaimers associated with the sprocket specs but it is not a fit. When I initially set up the chain I realized that the chain fit snug but did not realize that the chain was not bottoming in the sprocket roller pockets. I had ordered a heavy duty pre-stressed chain as a replacement only to be disappointed when received and realized that I had received a standard pre-stressed chain. When I installed the original HD chain, I had to shorten by four or five links. I took the new standard chain and laid in a spare sprocket to see how it looked and then took the left over HD chain and tried in the sprocket and realized how tight it felt. I took the links and drove them down into the sprocket. I could pick the sprocket up by just gripping the chain.
Attachment 63131
I then went back to the failed chain and reexamined it looking at the area that would have been pinched by the lack of space between the two sprocket rows of teeth. As can be seen in the pictures that the chain center section links are burned brown and that the link segments adjacent to the teeth are pressure marked from being pinched. All of this heat energy of pulling the chain into and out of the sprocket and coming from the driven sprocket is energy that is not making it to the load sensor at the pump.
Attachment 63132
Attachment 63133
Attachment 63134
The last 2 pics are of the drive and driven sprockets after I changed to the chain drive. You can see in the drive sprocket that the links are tight between the teeth and there is room at the outer sides of the teeth. The driven sprocket I welded from flat sprockets and my turned hub. Dual sprockets that large are not offered and need to be fabricated. That sprocket was welded with the HD chain as a spacing guide and can be seen in the picture that it has the right center to center spacing.
Attachment 63137
Attachment 63138
I guess that the question of how much parasitic drag there may have been from the dyno is now a real consideration. The issue with the chain failure is because the double row chain sprocket tooth center to center spacing on the drive shaft was not sufficient for the double row heavy duty chain. There were no disclaimers associated with the sprocket specs but it is not a fit. When I initially set up the chain I realized that the chain fit snug but did not realize that the chain was not bottoming in the sprocket roller pockets. I had ordered a heavy duty pre-stressed chain as a replacement only to be disappointed when received and realized that I had received a standard pre-stressed chain. When I installed the original HD chain, I had to shorten by four or five links. I took the new standard chain and laid in a spare sprocket to see how it looked and then took the left over HD chain and tried in the sprocket and realized how tight it felt. I took the links and drove them down into the sprocket. I could pick the sprocket up by just gripping the chain.
Attachment 63139
I then went back to the failed chain and reexamined it looking at the area that would have been pinched by the lack of space between the two sprocket rows of teeth. As can be seen in the pictures that the chain center section links are burned brown and that the link segments adjacent to the teeth are pressure marked from being pinched. All of this heat energy of pulling the chain into and out of the sprocket and coming from the drive sprocket is energy that is not making it to the load sensor at the pump.
Attachment 63140
Attachment 63141
Attachment 63142
The last 2 pics are of the drive and driven sprockets after I changed to the chain drive. You can see in the drive sprocket that the links are tight between the teeth and there is room at the outer sides of the teeth. The driven sprocket I welded from flat sprockets and my turned hub. Dual sprockets that large are not offered and need to be fabricated. That sprocket was welded with the HD chain as a spacing guide and can be seen in the picture that it has the right center to center spacing.
Attachment 63143
Attachment 63144
Perhaps one of those onshaft inline eddy current load cells might be an easier way to measure the output.
They used them on one European offshore sterndrive class to allow a power to weight specification to be met so I know they are small.
Looked through out the internet and do not find any eddy current unit that will handle this kind of HP except large dyno units, let alone the one described in your post.
After some research, it appears a 3 inch wide RPV Silent chain meets the HP requirements, although falls short of meeting the RPM range. That chain/sprocket set comes at a price of about $1400.00 dollars. We will see how the new double row chain holds up before that investment.
OK I will try to find it. I do remember seeing an article about the supplier for Class 1 offshore a few years for the European racers. I was sure they said it was an eddy current device so it was the size of a ujoint.
Shaft torque equipment is quite simple, 2 sensors on a shaft looking at each other and a known shaft material so when it twists it can be calculated on the fly.
Something like this but the one I remember looked like 2 flanges together and bolted to the the Mercrusier tailstock shaft flanges.
http://catalog.cooperinstruments.com...rque-load-cell
The land-and-sea dynamite dynamometer makes a great water brake, but they are pricey.
After reviewing the Cooper instrument site I believe that the unit that you are looking at is just a rotational load cell. Nothing that can be part of a rotating shaft assembly. IE, instead a load cell on the end the arm reading the pumps desire to spin, it would be mounted on the rotational end point of the pump and the other flange mounted to a stationary structure. It reads a twisting, rotational, load. None of the offerings are capable of applying a resistance load.
I have noticed that some of the posts that I had trouble uploading pictures on have appeared again like they were copied over again. That is what really happened because at the time, as I tried, the system notified me that they had to clear a moderator. Not knowing what that meant I just approached the process differently and was successful. Now that Ron changed some of the rules, they popped up.
Having said all that, "Is there anybody, Ron or anyone that can tell me how to backup or download the entire thread for safe keeping?"
I was interested in racing, but after finding out what todays stuff is about I decided to just collect and run them sensibly for personal enjoyment...but what I learned about racing outboards and set up is that ultimately, one who gets the kind of HP and speed that racers claim is at any cost. I found out that prop slip just happens even at a high rate. But if speed is greatest even at such an extreme condition, that's the exception. I found out for my self that RPM don't matter. These guys run their engines far beyond what the manufacturers recommend, as long as it would finish the race day.....they really don't care when they are out there in the pack. MPH don't really matter either. Its about starting close at the clock, getting around through and out of a turn, and about quick lap time getting and staying ahead of the other guy, that's all. They have spares when they blow apart.
Ultimately, with a modified reengineered version of an otherwise old design outboard configuration, if you want the kind of power beyond what you might be getting, then you might as well be willing to destroy it without a second thought. If you get your tolerances (bearings and seals, and pistons/rings etc..)to the point of just before compromise, as in making things real loosy-goosy and even putting a little pin hole from your water jacket just over your induction ports to boost compression and other things and maybe put some pieces of cork in the crankcase to increase pressure till it gets ground up and blown out so inspectors wouldn't know at end of race, and maybe a bit of additive that drops into the fuel at the start or during the race hid in the fuel tank where it wont be seen and used up at the end..... you know, some of the tricks the old timers used to know? (yeah, I figured it all out, LOL!!).....then you will get to 300 or more surely. But if it were mine, I would leave it as is now and have fun with it and it may last! It may be to big (referring to the crank shaft and rotating assembly size) with the same kind of metal to take any more RPMs like a smaller inline engine did to make the most HP per CID... A big-block wont out spin a small-block and if the small block can breath enough to burn the fuel too, it wins in a power to displacement comparison every time. There is no point in trying to prove otherwise! I think that 270+ is plenty for a kiekhaefer inline merc period!..... Now forgive my competitive jousting, but if it were a Johnson outboard inspired build, you would have no trouble passing 3hp+++ per CID, and it will start every time and run all day anywhere you'd want to go every time for ever, LOL!!! Take care and good luck with your new engine though, I believe that it is set up very good and doing perfect right where it is !
This picture was in a box of pictures I acquired , I am told that perhaps it is Dick Austin and his dad ???
Yes, that is Owen, my dad, and I in Alexandria La in the early seventies. Engine had stuck the top main bearing and we tore it down and replaced. I do not remember doing anything with the cylinders, but it looks like I was honing with a high tech brake cylinder hone. What ever it takes. This engine is one that I tried after the rotary engine broke. It had the same crank form the 800 Inline 6 with 2.125 stroke. I did use the mains and reeds form the stock direct charge 6 cylinder (150 HP). the crank had larger center to center cylinder spacing as can be seen by the different spacing of the exhaust elbows.
A picture from that same day with Skip, the Champion man, telling me to get it back together and get back on the water.
Attachment 68415
Attachment 68416
Had a chance to run the engine again on the repaired dyno. Same size chain with an idler to adjust chain better and used a mill/lathe tool cooling system spraying soul-able oil on the chain for cooling and lubrication. Seemed to work ok chain never even got hot.
Attached are some videos of the runs. The first run had a fouled plug which you can pick up on by the low foot pound reading. They are listed 1 thru 4. Number 3 was the last run with aviation gas with a 10 to 1 standard 2 cycle oil for pickling the engine. Don"t know when will run again.
The adjustments to the fuel map worked OK. No adjustments required with the steam wheel. Still seems rich thru 5k but will wait for on water conditions before further adjustments. Power is peaking a 7900/8000 and will require block exhaust work to gain more. Did run up to 8500 without consequences. Think 9500 is doable but will just try to get on the water. SOME WHERE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V29bTrxFWjk
Attached is a YouTube address to 1 of 4 dyno runs from last weekend on you tube. Numbers are out of order. #3 is pickling after run. #1 was clearing gas and oil from last run with a fouled plug as can be seen from the low torque number. Then 2 and 4 being final. Tried making graph of ECU output but screwed that up. Did push to 8500 RPM with torque numbers falling. Fuel map adjustments were good as no steam wheel adjustments were necessary. So, good enough for now. Just need to find someplace to run.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V29bTrxFWjk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbn7bYZQuak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN_azY75vAY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvtP_HSonW8
Hi Dick
I was wondering if you are able to get the load cell set up so that you could put it 1' from the shaft centre to enable direct readout?
The load sensor is placed as close as possible to the 1 foot rotational point of the pump unit for a direct read in foot pounds. The output needs to be divided by 2 due to the chain ratio between the drive shaft and the pump. I am running a pump that was designed for max of 2500 pounds pressure and 2500 RPM at 3000-3500 pounds pressure and 4250-4500 RPM. Would not survive at a direct drive setup.
Many things play into the out put number such as atmospheric conditions, oil temperature and internal dyno power lose. Even the pump output pressure hose at 3000 pounds is on the side of the rotation of the pump that resists bending, in fact becomes an solid object that is pushing against the pump robbing force at the load sensor.
At the end of the day, it does not matter. The engine runs strong, I have adjusted the fuel map closer, and have numbers that are now meaningful as I continue to test. The chain problem appears to be solved with the proper chain and sprocket match-up. I added spray coolant to the chain by using my mill / lathe tool cooling system and a spray fitting threaded into the rear of the chain case and spray with soluble oil solution.
Put all the boats together and taking to Pentwater, just 15 miles south, to their wood boat show on the 25th. After that I may put back on dyno and do some more fuel map work now that I have discovered my mistake trying to record running parameters from the ACU.
I am sure given a professional dyno setup all numbers would look different. To me, what I have are working reference numbers. Looking forward to running someplace.
Yes being able to put the engine under load in the shop is a big part of it.
Seems that the thread is getting a little stale. So I will add a little material that may not be related to the beast but might still be of interest. The Beast is ready to hit the water next summer, so I have time to work on other projects. One of which repairing the damage to my original Quincy Looper.
The mid case has been damaged in the past and needed to be replaced and after breaking a ring in Depue a couple years ago I decided to make a replacement part.
I approached this casting different than the beast. The beast was what is referred to as a cope, drag with two cheeks. This casting is a simple cope and drag with a core for the crank and transfers. This however required a complicated core. I drew the core in the computer and printed out the plastic pieces required to produce the core box. Had those two parts cast . Then I machined and hand polished the interiors for smooth release. Made a sand half to check the dimensions then produced the full one piece core. The bottom end core had to be longer than the center cores. So a block was made to drop in the one end half to shorten to make the end for the center cores. The center cores have different crank lengths on the end which allow making the different center to center cylinder bores by reversing the core. The top of the casting becomes long allowing the use of the same core as the bottom. Just have to cut the top of the casting off. Easier than making a third core for just the top end.
Attachment 69211
Attachment 69212
Attachment 69213
Attachment 69214
Attachment 69215
Attachment 69216
Attachment 69217
Attachment 69218
Attachment 69219
Attachment 69220
With the completion of the back half of the crankcase and the fact that I had already made the casting for the replacement heads on the Quincy looper, I figured that I might as well make the block also.
The reality of it is that the block is the easiest pattern to make. With these three patterns only two more are required. The exhaust elbow and the piston. I will reach out to Mark Suter and ask if he still has the pattern for the elbow. I have made the patterns for two pistons. A 50 cubic inch size and a 60/66 size. I just need to test the core boxes for them. Making cast pistons does not scare me as the pistons that we ran back at the time were cast. The material used in the castings today and with heat treating they will be fine.
Just thinking about the 50 inch motor as an E motor for mod. Pump gas, I guess E85 is pump gas and 85% alcohol. Anyone interested?
Attachment 69323
Attachment 69324
Attachment 69325
Attachment 69326
Attachment 69327
Attachment 69328
Attachment 69329
Attachment 69330
Attachment 69331
Attachment 69332
whats the yellow material?
Amazing work!!!
Hi Dick... Sorry I am a late reader of your latest offering in this thread. I am responding to your question on the availability of an original exhaust elbow pattern that will work with your remake of the six cylinder Quincy Looper. I never had any Quincy patterns but I do have the elbow pattern for the Parker Looper which will work on a Quincy motor. The only significant difference in the elbow is that it is designed for use with a sheet metal cone (ILO cast aluminum cone). I am planning to donate my racing engine collection (including the Parker patterns) to the Barber Vintage Motor Sports Museum in the fall of this year so the elbow pattern is still in my possession... if you want to borrow it. Let me know.