Yep, it was modeled after North American Mustang plans. The wing design is different, so it has a more docile flight characteristic. I appreciate you watching my videos!
As an auto mechanic for 44 years. A quarter turn around the bottom sprocket is really not enough to reliably transmit much torque or to be reilable for flight. You may need a sliding captured bar with two idlers above the crank to create almost half a turn of belt around the crank sprocket. Make sure the sliding bar has enough Y to prevent it from folding up into the cam sprockets. I would love for you to invest in a carbon pile and a multimeter with long leads with decent gator clips. Hook the carbon pile across the positive starter post and the engine block or starter mounting stud then set the volt meter to 20 volts DC. Hook one lead to the starter top post and the other to the positive battery post. Turn the carbon pile to 300 amps and watch the volt meter. I would like to see less than 2 volts of drop on the positive side of the starter battery circuit. Next test. Move the multimeter test leads to the starter body and the negative battery post. Turn the pile to 300 amps. This is only for a few seconds. Less than 2 volts of drop on the negative side. Puffing black. Almost sounded like you hydraulic locked the engine with fuel. Please pull all the spark plugs. Do a compression test. Make sure you have not bent anything like a rod. If you are trying to start the engine from a jump start box. Autozones sell a marine group 24 and 27 starting and deep cycle battery for 100 bucks and core. They also sell various lengths of battery cables. And red tape to mark the positive. I am not your average mechanic. There is no reason to not have CO2 fire bottles sitting within the wingspan of the plane. And a nomex driving suit on anybody in the cockpit operating the starting controls.
I concur on all points made here. During start the setup as shown will have too much of a voltage drop at the starter especially as the cheesy cables get hot. Also, depending on the torque/timing requirements of the bottom pulley (simple pump vs. critical timing), 25-30% engagement of sprocket may or may not be enough. Hopefully the belt is part of 50 hr inspection minimum. Keep up the great work.
Wow! Very exciting to see Jan's airplane out in the sun for this test run. Very sorry for the glitch, but it appears you guys are very much on op of it. Curious though from the Test Stand Run of approximately 3 hrs. if those two internal areas were rubbing at that time as well. Keep up the awesome work guys. Praying for a successful test run soon. Wishing everyone involved a Blessed Day... Larry W. Ocala, FL. B-777 Driver & Future S-51D Owner.
Larry, when the engine was ran on the test stand, none of those components were there. It was ran as if it were a car engine with carburation, regular oil pan and water pump. That was done a couple of years before the ADU was manufactured. Appreciate your comments. Stay tuned for more excitement.
Put a belt tensioner on the belt to increase the belt wrap around the crank pulley. Put a flywheel on the propeller flange to absorb starter motor and power pulse shock to the belt work. The propeller alone would fix this as well.
That accessory housing and the routing of the drive belt don't look right to me. The amount of belt engaged with the lower sprocket isn't sufficient. How did the parts that were rubbing come into contact with the case? There should be bearings and/or spacers to keep them from moving closer to the case.
Needs some idlers and a tensioner. They need to look at current automotive belt dirve systems. Even then the belt is only turning the cams, not transmitting all the engine power. Also look at supercharger dives an fuel dragsters
The only thing the ADU with its associated belts and cogs is accessories. This engine does not have overhead cams. The cam in this engine is driven off of the crank the same as a 1955 chevy 265 and is very reliable. The are support bearings and spacers for every cog that should have prevented this from happening. The proof will come the next time he tries to start it
Only looked at the thumbnail and immediately saw that the engine/propeller has no downthrust. The actual P-51D had downthrust, small amount but helped make it the most economical at cruise altitude to accompany the bombers to Europe.
I have never been a fan of toothed belts they are at the bottom of my preferred list which goes gears, chain and only as a last resort belt. I am surprised this problem did not show up in the test cell unless of course this auxiliary drive system was not mounted then.
When the engine was ran in the test cell it was using a carburetor and no aux drive unit. This was the first start attempt using injection and this ignition. Jan is currently reinstalling all the systems to prepare for another start session
There is a flywheel for this engine as in any automotive engine. For these initial starts, Jan didn't to make being around the engine more dangerous. When the engine is running reliably then we'll install the propeller.
Those are radar mapping birds that Dave and Jan have been maintaining for years. They currently have no mission and the engines have been sold off of one of them. Those housings cover the radar equipment for the mission profile
@@mustangbob51 #DIYLipoSuctionWIthAShopVac ??? It's a business model I'm working on. I figure I just need a few seedy alleys & a 70's Van & I'll bee in business. 😜 Aaaah, to be young & thin again!
My background with timing belts are with much smaller CNC/servo types but I have had problems with the lack of tooth engagement on smaller drive pulleys like you are using. I'd be concerned with even with a low accessory load the belt could slip during high acceleration/deceleration like commonly seen in aircraft use.
so, aside for the clearance problems that we had, there is not a lot of horsepower required to turn the accessories on this engine. also, when the ADU was being engineered, the belt manufacturer was consulted regarding tooth engagement and tensions. these were all complied with for purposes of the build. I've just uploaded a video with successful runs of this beast. check it out! thanks for watching!
Nice! When starting and running, doesn't any engine (other than an F1 racing engine) require an inertial load - a flywheel, or in this case, the propellor to run properly?
Yep. My io360 Lycoming has a flywheel but not heavy enough to sustain engine rotation. The mustang has a heavy flywheel, therefore doesn't need a proper for initial runs
@@mustangbob51 Thanks for the reply. Given the need to be judicious about weight in an aircraft, I assumed that the propellor would serve as the flywheel, and the starter might turn a simple ring gear.
Seen plenty of domestic iron run on homemade engine stands in people's garages with only a flex plate on the back and live long lives thereafter. For breaking in flat tappet camshafts particularly, it's desirable not to have that inertial load. You want to be able to start it up and rev to 2000+ rpms immediately for the break in. Obviously long term your statement is true but you're not going to hurt the engine running it without an inertial load for an hour or two.
John, the engine ran on a test stand for three hours, but with a carburetor, a standard oil pan, and no accessories. This was the first attempt with a fully integrated assembly. It did light, but as you could see in the video, only for a moment. I have a couple of other videos detailing the engine running and how the problems the assembly had. It runs well, and it is really a beast. I hope you will check out some of my other videos.
bad design. clearances are not the issue. too much counter torque (load) on that drive assembly ( which is not drag) you need gear drive assembly. that belt will never hold . its not clearance guys. the belt spread (got wider on the gear) from the pulse counter torque load on gear . thats why it hit the sides where the gears are. it only hit when it spreads from the pulsing load of the gear. . It is a pulsing load , so the belt expands where it laps over the gear on moments of high counter torque load on the gear. the belts spreads , masses onto the gear from counter torque load. You may get lucky and get her started with it, by giving more clearances to stop the rubbing, which will make you think you have the problem solved. But the pulse counter torque load on the gear will still be there and the pulse spreading of the belt on the gear will remain. the belt will snap in short time as it is constantly being mass spread on the gear. you will end up crashing from that setup. you need GET RID OF belts. use all gears. make an idler gear and drive gear setup. gear drive will make more of an authentic P 51 sound too. I built hundreds of motors. Every single one started one first crank , in less than 3 seconds. Every one, over 40 yrs.
The boy's right unfortunately. There's enough problems with flying these days without having to worry about the engine shitting itself when there's nowhere to land. Belts and chains are for cars. Gears are for aircraft. They're not as expensive as the pilot's life. That engine is a failure waiting to happen.
The HP is calculated at 6500 @ 4800 RPM. i can't remember what the weight is, but it's all aluminum block, heads and intake, so a fair amount lighter than as iron block one. I will try to get an answer on that and get back to you.
Several years of engineering and input from several other operators were involved in the development of this ADU and PSRU. The result of this collaboration is the product that you see in the video. These are working well in the 4 or 5 other mustangs using them.
What would an airframe like that do with a Chevy LS engine? I have an LQ4, supercharged. It has done 1250HP with 24PSI boost. The road setup was only 860HP at 9 PSI 7000rpm. I am trying to talk my kids into putting it in an airframe, they want to keep it in a truck but are not hostile to something with wings. Only problem is we only fly nose dragers we are not tail wheel certified, I know minor. I gave the engine computer maker a goal of 4800rpm and 12lbs boost. He said 850-950 HP without emission which it now has. He thinks he can hold 12PSI to 20,000 feet with my blower. Could I fly an airframe like that on 800HP? You may have cost me more money but it will be fun.
Jan purposely kept the HP down to make it more reliable. We anticipate a 200 hour tear down and inspection to make sure of the condition to insure that reliability
Just speaking for myself personally, if I was going to go through all the trouble to adapt a BBC for aircraft usage, I would not have chosen mechanical fuel injection. EFI with a return fuel system would have been my choice, probably using something minimal like megasquirt to control it. Especially considering you're using boost, you lean that thing out and you're going to throw a rod though the pan. I'd of also probably used a big cube LSX instead of a BBC, but that's a whole other discussion. The electronics are easier with the LS because you can use stock computers with HP Tuners and so forth plus they will reliably make 1000+ HP with the right parts.
The belts just turn the accessories. Water pump, oil pump, scavage pump (this is a dry sump system), alternator, prop governor, ETC. The cam is driven traditionally off of the crank with a chain just like originally designed by GM a hundred years ago
no mike, the cog belt driven accessory drive is the result of several engineers and a couple of years of research to create the unit. 4 other of these are running without difficulty.
You are correct. This is Jan's first attempt at starting this engine in the airframe. There are 5 other Stewarts that are configured with the systems that he has added to this plane and he has had a stiff learning curve with regards to starting. The first time I started my Lycoming IO360, I'm sure I had an befuddled look on my face also. And he had the added confusion from the problems with the ADU
thanks for the comment Twister. the interesting thing is that there are 4 other ADU's just like Jan's currently flying. it makes no sense to us. i'm getting ready to do an update on Jan's mustang regarding how the engine was built and the precautions taken to ensure a really strong engine. be sure to stay tuned
it's not necessary at this point. we have a lot of checking to make sure that there are no leaks or other potential problems. having a prop swinging out there makes it really dangerous. the prop will go on as soon as the engine is operating properly.
It looks like the fan is connected to the harmonic damper. With little clearance it will cause a low pressure away from the engine, just like blocking a vacuum inlet. If the harmonic has a rubber separator it will cause it to expand axially. If the rubber is damaged it may have moved towards the external housing already. Why does it need a fan anyway? That belt design is not good in the mind of this engineer. I don't understand why your are using such a poorly designed engine also, and why are you using a distributor and magneto. No way was it designed by engineers, engineers don't use imperial measurement also.
This engine has a flywheel like regular automotive engines have. The engine is actually mounted backwards with the flywheel at the front of the airplane.
Because we all know this is a copy of the P51 I don't think I would have cluttered up the engine bay with anything phony like Make believe exhaust stacks or anything But I guess it was important to make it look like it has the Merlin V12...when anyone with ear's can clearly hear the sound of the Big 540..I liked the look on his face with the Starter Bendix started talking But all this is a part of the process when your fabricating one off parts ...
@@aviation.satire please don’t think I’m being rude. I also have no experience personally, so my opinion is worth noting. I have seen ecu issues due to limp mode. I have also seen lots of PSRU cause trouble as well. I also know of valve train issues as well. I just love mustangs and airplanes and big block Chevys. I hope nothing but the best for you.
@@oneiam1533 nope was just curious what you had seen as well I want to get a Stewart so I was seeing what else I could research about the Chevy big blocks
@@aviation.satire ignition failures I think. There are dead stick crash landings from these engines that were approved for aircraft use. It's beginning to look like a failure
Love the S-51, it's easily the best scale Mustang. Love the Chipmunks section of the video. !
Totally agree. The weather is warming up, so I suspect Jan will be willing to take it outside and maybe fly it soon. Thanks for watching my videos
I looked back at some of your videos. You fellas are fortunate to be working on the restoration of an A 26. I have much respect for that.
Thank you Brian. It's been a privilege to be able to work on this magnificent warbird. Thx for your comments. Please stay tuned for more
freaking awesome, Jan is the Man, and so are you Bob!
thanks dude. still need the other eyebrow window. lol. see you soon!
Thai you so much for this awesome video. Appreciate you. Please show more
Man...I just LOVE the Stewart S51...the best looking (i.e. authentic looking) scale P-51 replica out there, IMHO.
Yep, it was modeled after North American Mustang plans. The wing design is different, so it has a more docile flight characteristic. I appreciate you watching my videos!
Beautiful you're going to have a lot of fun enjoy stay safe flight smart 👍
As an auto mechanic for 44 years. A quarter turn around the bottom sprocket is really not enough to reliably transmit much torque or to be reilable for flight. You may need a sliding captured bar with two idlers above the crank to create almost half a turn of belt around the crank sprocket. Make sure the sliding bar has enough Y to prevent it from folding up into the cam sprockets.
I would love for you to invest in a carbon pile and a multimeter with long leads with decent gator clips. Hook the carbon pile across the positive starter post and the engine block or starter mounting stud then set the volt meter to 20 volts DC. Hook one lead to the starter top post and the other to the positive battery post. Turn the carbon pile to 300 amps and watch the volt meter. I would like to see less than 2 volts of drop on the positive side of the starter battery circuit.
Next test. Move the multimeter test leads to the starter body and the negative battery post. Turn the pile to 300 amps. This is only for a few seconds. Less than 2 volts of drop on the negative side.
Puffing black. Almost sounded like you hydraulic locked the engine with fuel. Please pull all the spark plugs. Do a compression test. Make sure you have not bent anything like a rod.
If you are trying to start the engine from a jump start box. Autozones sell a marine group 24 and 27 starting and deep cycle battery for 100 bucks and core.
They also sell various lengths of battery cables. And red tape to mark the positive.
I am not your average mechanic.
There is no reason to not have CO2 fire bottles sitting within the wingspan of the plane. And a nomex driving suit on anybody in the cockpit operating the starting controls.
I concur on all points made here. During start the setup as shown will have too much of a voltage drop at the starter especially as the cheesy cables get hot. Also, depending on the torque/timing requirements of the bottom pulley (simple pump vs. critical timing), 25-30% engagement of sprocket may or may not be enough. Hopefully the belt is part of 50 hr inspection minimum. Keep up the great work.
there might not be enough belt rap on the gears , i think the tenser should be pushing down on the belt not up , just a thought .
“I am not your average mechanic” that’s exactly what an average mechanic would say to sell some more ling longs to an elderly couple 🫵🤡
Wow! Very exciting to see Jan's airplane out in the sun for this test run. Very sorry for the glitch, but it appears you guys are very much on op of it. Curious though from the Test Stand Run of approximately 3 hrs. if those two internal areas were rubbing at that time as well. Keep up the awesome work guys. Praying for a successful test run soon. Wishing everyone involved a Blessed Day... Larry W. Ocala, FL. B-777 Driver & Future S-51D Owner.
Larry, when the engine was ran on the test stand, none of those components were there. It was ran as if it were a car engine with carburation, regular oil pan and water pump. That was done a couple of years before the ADU was manufactured. Appreciate your comments. Stay tuned for more excitement.
Can’t believe you finally did it! woot woot!! 🎉❤
Sucker wants to run. Should start like a champ once you get the clearance issue resolved. Good luck, Jan!
looking forward to it!
🧐 why he didn’t say “ Clear Prop “ ?
Wait for it. i think that you have to have a propeller to actually say that. kinda bad luck with out one. lol
It was already clear. I could see right through it.
Put a belt tensioner on the belt to increase the belt wrap around the crank pulley. Put a flywheel on the propeller flange to absorb starter motor and power pulse shock to the belt work. The propeller alone would fix this as well.
Don't give up,its cool
Nope, not giving up. We sent the supercharger in as it was making a strange noise. Waiting for that to come back. Thanks for watching.
That accessory housing and the routing of the drive belt don't look right to me. The amount of belt engaged with the lower sprocket isn't sufficient. How did the parts that were rubbing come into contact with the case? There should be bearings and/or spacers to keep them from moving closer to the case.
Needs some idlers and a tensioner. They need to look at current automotive belt dirve systems. Even then the belt is only turning the cams, not transmitting all the engine power. Also look at supercharger dives an fuel dragsters
The only thing the ADU with its associated belts and cogs is accessories. This engine does not have overhead cams. The cam in this engine is driven off of the crank the same as a 1955 chevy 265 and is very reliable. The are support bearings and spacers for every cog that should have prevented this from happening. The proof will come the next time he tries to start it
It’s amazing that in ww2 they kept these aircraft flying at a moment’s notice
Amen.
With a ground crew of about 4 people, IIRC, per aircraft.
Need a set of idler roller to push the toothed belt against the bottom drive pulley. Belt is loose and will keep doing it without idlers.
Only looked at the thumbnail and immediately saw that the engine/propeller has no downthrust. The actual P-51D had downthrust, small amount but helped make it the most economical at cruise altitude to accompany the bombers to Europe.
I have never been a fan of toothed belts they are at the bottom of my preferred list which goes gears, chain and only as a last resort belt.
I am surprised this problem did not show up in the test cell unless of course this auxiliary drive system was not mounted then.
When the engine was ran in the test cell it was using a carburetor and no aux drive unit. This was the first start attempt using injection and this ignition. Jan is currently reinstalling all the systems to prepare for another start session
@@mustangbob51 OK, that would explain it, thanks.
Toyota Tundras use a toothed belt that turns the 2 cams and the water pump and are trouble free . Toyota has some dam good engineers .
How is it that you don't need a prop, or at least a club to take the load?
There is a flywheel for this engine as in any automotive engine. For these initial starts, Jan didn't to make being around the engine more dangerous. When the engine is running reliably then we'll install the propeller.
Pretty cool... so you didn't have the accessory case installed during the test stand runs.. hmmmm.
Yea. It wasn't built at that time. This is a huge undertaking, and Jan has to work through understanding how everything meshes together. Baby steps.
Stuart Little also had a tiny Mouse-stang.
Lol.
What's the story on the enormous cyst on the Lear Jet?
1:06
Those are radar mapping birds that Dave and Jan have been maintaining for years. They currently have no mission and the engines have been sold off of one of them. Those housings cover the radar equipment for the mission profile
@@mustangbob51 Thanks!
Those Lear Jets are about my favorite of all the jets. Such pretty lines!
I agree. But climbing into the cockpit of these aircraft is for monkeys. My belly makes it an adventure. Lol
@@mustangbob51 #DIYLipoSuctionWIthAShopVac ???
It's a business model I'm working on. I figure I just need a few seedy alleys & a 70's Van & I'll bee in business. 😜 Aaaah, to be young & thin again!
My background with timing belts are with much smaller CNC/servo types but I have had problems with the lack of tooth engagement on smaller drive pulleys like you are using. I'd be concerned with even with a low accessory load the belt could slip during high acceleration/deceleration like commonly seen in aircraft use.
so, aside for the clearance problems that we had, there is not a lot of horsepower required to turn the accessories on this engine. also, when the ADU was being engineered, the belt manufacturer was consulted regarding tooth engagement and tensions. these were all complied with for purposes of the build. I've just uploaded a video with successful runs of this beast. check it out! thanks for watching!
Nice!
When starting and running, doesn't any engine (other than an F1 racing engine) require an inertial load - a flywheel, or in this case, the propellor to run properly?
Yep. My io360 Lycoming has a flywheel but not heavy enough to sustain engine rotation. The mustang has a heavy flywheel, therefore doesn't need a proper for initial runs
@@mustangbob51 Thanks for the reply. Given the need to be judicious about weight in an aircraft, I assumed that the propellor would serve as the flywheel, and the starter might turn a simple ring gear.
In this case, Jan is counting on the weight of the prop for weight and balance. The tail is too heavy without it.
Seen plenty of domestic iron run on homemade engine stands in people's garages with only a flex plate on the back and live long lives thereafter. For breaking in flat tappet camshafts particularly, it's desirable not to have that inertial load. You want to be able to start it up and rev to 2000+ rpms immediately for the break in.
Obviously long term your statement is true but you're not going to hurt the engine running it without an inertial load for an hour or two.
11:09 There is not enough tooth contact on the drive gear in this belt design, it will fail!
Correct!
Dont fix symptoms fix problems.
The thumbnail says 'first start', but it doesn't.
John, the engine ran on a test stand for three hours, but with a carburetor, a standard oil pan, and no accessories. This was the first attempt with a fully integrated assembly. It did light, but as you could see in the video, only for a moment. I have a couple of other videos detailing the engine running and how the problems the assembly had. It runs well, and it is really a beast. I hope you will check out some of my other videos.
bad design. clearances are not the issue. too much counter torque (load) on that drive assembly ( which is not drag) you need gear drive assembly. that belt will never hold . its not clearance guys. the belt spread (got wider on the gear) from the pulse counter torque load on gear . thats why it hit the sides where the gears are. it only hit when it spreads from the pulsing load of the gear. . It is a pulsing load , so the belt expands where it laps over the gear on moments of high counter torque load on the gear. the belts spreads , masses onto the gear from counter torque load. You may get lucky and get her started with it, by giving more clearances to stop the rubbing, which will make you think you have the problem solved. But the pulse counter torque load on the gear will still be there and the pulse spreading of the belt on the gear will remain. the belt will snap in short time as it is constantly being mass spread on the gear. you will end up crashing from that setup. you need GET RID OF belts. use all gears. make an idler gear and drive gear setup. gear drive will make more of an authentic P 51 sound too. I built hundreds of motors. Every single one started one first crank , in less than 3 seconds. Every one, over 40 yrs.
Some of these guys you just can’t tell anything. They know it all.
The boy's right unfortunately. There's enough problems with flying these days without having to worry about the engine shitting itself when there's nowhere to land. Belts and chains are for cars. Gears are for aircraft. They're not as expensive as the pilot's life. That engine is a failure waiting to happen.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong I take it that’s not a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine in that P 51 mustang
I thought it was for a second by exhausts, but then saw two on each side are for show
Nope not a merlin. Big block chevy platform ( AKA Allison, lol).
What is you calculated horsepower output and what is the weight of the engine?
The HP is calculated at 6500 @ 4800 RPM. i can't remember what the weight is, but it's all aluminum block, heads and intake, so a fair amount lighter than as iron block one. I will try to get an answer on that and get back to you.
i just checked with Jan, he calculates about 650 with the PSRU and drive unit.the prop will add another 150 to the nose of the airplane.
That old girl is beautiful!!
Why not use a chain drive instead of a belt ?
Several years of engineering and input from several other operators were involved in the development of this ADU and PSRU. The result of this collaboration is the product that you see in the video. These are working well in the 4 or 5 other mustangs using them.
What would an airframe like that do with a Chevy LS engine? I have an LQ4, supercharged. It has done 1250HP with 24PSI boost. The road setup was only 860HP at 9 PSI 7000rpm.
I am trying to talk my kids into putting it in an airframe, they want to keep it in a truck but are not hostile to something with wings. Only problem is we only fly nose dragers we are not tail wheel certified, I know minor.
I gave the engine computer maker a goal of 4800rpm and 12lbs boost. He said 850-950 HP without emission which it now has. He thinks he can hold 12PSI to 20,000 feet with my blower.
Could I fly an airframe like that on 800HP?
You may have cost me more money but it will be fun.
Jan purposely kept the HP down to make it more reliable. We anticipate a 200 hour tear down and inspection to make sure of the condition to insure that reliability
V - 12?
Nope, just a V8.
Who farted at 2:47? haha
Pretty sure that was a Jan belch, but pretty funny!
Very impressive build but my first thought would be just build a real full scale mustang
Gotta have deep pockets for one of those! LOL
He's got the choke out , and he will burn the starter out ..
..So in a way, it's an Allison powered Mustang..😃..Chevy, GM division...Allison(back then), a GM division...
I love it. Awesome observation. Gonna steal that.
Just speaking for myself personally, if I was going to go through all the trouble to adapt a BBC for aircraft usage, I would not have chosen mechanical fuel injection. EFI with a return fuel system would have been my choice, probably using something minimal like megasquirt to control it. Especially considering you're using boost, you lean that thing out and you're going to throw a rod though the pan.
I'd of also probably used a big cube LSX instead of a BBC, but that's a whole other discussion. The electronics are easier with the LS because you can use stock computers with HP Tuners and so forth plus they will reliably make 1000+ HP with the right parts.
thanks for your thoughts, Jim. appreciate you watching the channel!
Engine needs to come back out...
🏆
Wish it had the Orenda OE600 instead
Belts cannot have been in the original design?
If they drive cam-shafts, then catastrophic damage can result from slippage.
The belts just turn the accessories. Water pump, oil pump, scavage pump (this is a dry sump system), alternator, prop governor, ETC. The cam is driven traditionally off of the crank with a chain just like originally designed by GM a hundred years ago
@@mustangbob51 Thanks for the reply.
But were toothed belts in the original design?
I am keen to know!
no mike, the cog belt driven accessory drive is the result of several engineers and a couple of years of research to create the unit. 4 other of these are running without difficulty.
I am going to guess the weight of the engine around 485 pounds .
Jan figures over 600 lbs for the engine PSRU and ADU.
Now with real machine gun sound!
That will be on the bomber
All the experts will ever get this engine right nobody does for a very long time
Is that someone farting at 2:50?
Nope, pretty sure Jan had just eaten lunch and that was a satisfied belch. LOL. You make me laugh.
Just put a straight 4 cylinder chevy in it
lol
Get that Rolls-Royce engine make it a Merlin lol
nót meant to be easy ~ shortstepped
Initial starting sequence did not leave me with a lot of confidence in Jan's start up knowledge. He seemed confused. Just my thoughts.
You are correct. This is Jan's first attempt at starting this engine in the airframe. There are 5 other Stewarts that are configured with the systems that he has added to this plane and he has had a stiff learning curve with regards to starting. The first time I started my Lycoming IO360, I'm sure I had an befuddled look on my face also. And he had the added confusion from the problems with the ADU
There was an error made by the ADU engineer/designer that caused contact/rubbing within the ADU. Not Jan's fault at all.
thanks for the comment Twister. the interesting thing is that there are 4 other ADU's just like Jan's currently flying. it makes no sense to us. i'm getting ready to do an update on Jan's mustang regarding how the engine was built and the precautions taken to ensure a really strong engine. be sure to stay tuned
It is a good day to die. Hokaheh!
No one can die!! LOL
Unfortunately they never run very long Without problems
Yep, it's an airplane alright
Ide put a prop on it before you start it.
it's not necessary at this point. we have a lot of checking to make sure that there are no leaks or other potential problems. having a prop swinging out there makes it really dangerous. the prop will go on as soon as the engine is operating properly.
It looks like the fan is connected to the harmonic damper. With little clearance it will cause a low pressure away from the engine, just like blocking a vacuum inlet. If the harmonic has a rubber separator it will cause it to expand axially. If the rubber is damaged it may have moved towards the external housing already. Why does it need a fan anyway? That belt design is not good in the mind of this engineer. I don't understand why your are using such a poorly designed engine also, and why are you using a distributor and magneto. No way was it designed by engineers, engineers don't use imperial measurement also.
Don’t fly it. 😂
Doesn't it need a propeller for a flywheel. This automotive engine should have never been approved for aircraft. It has a bad reputation
This engine has a flywheel like regular automotive engines have. The engine is actually mounted backwards with the flywheel at the front of the airplane.
Jan didn't need to add the prop for these initial starts. He didn't want to complicate our lives with a prop at this point.
Fake v12
death trap.
Because we all know this is a copy of the P51 I don't think I would have cluttered up the engine bay with anything phony like Make believe exhaust stacks or anything But I guess it was important to make it look like it has the Merlin V12...when anyone with ear's can clearly hear the sound of the Big 540..I liked the look on his face with the Starter Bendix started talking But all this is a part of the process when your fabricating one off parts ...
Indeed, but gotta have the look. Lol
Be careful guys. Big block Chevy airplanes are prone to failures.
What kind of failures?
@@aviation.satire please don’t think I’m being rude. I also have no experience personally, so my opinion is worth noting.
I have seen ecu issues due to limp mode.
I have also seen lots of PSRU cause trouble as well.
I also know of valve train issues as well.
I just love mustangs and airplanes and big block Chevys. I hope nothing but the best for you.
@@oneiam1533 nope was just curious what you had seen as well I want to get a Stewart so I was seeing what else I could research about the Chevy big blocks
@@aviation.satire ignition failures I think. There are dead stick crash landings from these engines that were approved for aircraft use. It's beginning to look like a failure
@@aviation.satire Are you familiar with the Stewart community? just curious.
Death machine. Stop putting car engines in airplanes