Engine swap..... maybe a stupid question

[JD Butler]

Totally aside from the technical/mechanical side of things.......
Once a certified airplane has had the engine removed and swapped out
with a Mazda rotary engine and aftermarket reducer drive, what steps are
nessary to fly without the FAA crawling up my butt?
I'm sure a regular A&P would run like hell from one of these when it
came time for an annual...

Take it easy on me guys.... I don't even have my wings -- yet!

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[[email protected]]

JD Butler > wrote:
> Totally aside from the technical/mechanical side of things.......
> Once a certified airplane has had the engine removed and swapped out
> with a Mazda rotary engine and aftermarket reducer drive, what steps are
> nessary to fly without the FAA crawling up my butt?
> I'm sure a regular A&P would run like hell from one of these when it
> came time for an annual...

> Take it easy on me guys.... I don't even have my wings -- yet!

> *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

Oh my god, as if the thread about British cars wasn't full of enough
horror stories, now we are going to take on Mazda rotary engines.

Straight answer:

Assuming you can find a Mazda rotary that still runs, you put it in an
experimental and name me as beneficiary on your life insurance.

For a certified airplane, the cost of the paper alone would buy you one
hell of an airplane.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 23 Feb 2004 05:46:33 GMT, JD Butler > wrote:

>Totally aside from the technical/mechanical side of things.......
>Once a certified airplane has had the engine removed and swapped out
>with a Mazda rotary engine and aftermarket reducer drive, what steps are
>nessary to fly without the FAA crawling up my butt?

Go through the entire certification process, including demonstrating that
the engine meets all the Part 33 and many of the Part 23 requirements.

Otherwise, your plane is permanently(*) in the Experimental category.
What's worse, it cannot be licensed as a Experimental Amateur-Built
aircraft because you did not build the airplane, hence it has to be
licensed in one of the other Experimental sub-categories (R&D, Market
Research, etc.). Requirements for each sub-category differ, but they are
all more-restrictive than the Amateur-Built one. Depending on how your
FSDO interprets the rules, you may be restricted to solo flight only and/or
have to get permission for every flight beyond a limited distance from the
based airport.

(*) It actually can have the original engine re-installed and revert back
to its original certification.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:
> Oh my god, as if the thread about British cars wasn't full
> of enough horror stories, now we are going to take on\
> Mazda rotary engines.
>
> Straight answer:
>
> Assuming you can find a Mazda rotary that still runs, you
> put it in an experimental and name me as beneficiary on
> your life insurance.

What's so bad about Mazda rotaries? AFAIK, homebuilders are still
successfully using them in a variety of designs; apparently there are
plenty available.

I only have experience with one Mazda, a little coupe I owned back in
the 70's. It ran great for three years until my ex drove it into a
flooded underpass in Houston. Smooth and fast as hell (the car, not my
ex) but a little rough on gas mileage, it had a 4-barrel carb on it the
size of a dinner plate.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dave Stadt]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 Feb 2004 05:46:33 GMT, JD Butler > wrote:
>
> >Totally aside from the technical/mechanical side of things.......
> >Once a certified airplane has had the engine removed and swapped out
> >with a Mazda rotary engine and aftermarket reducer drive, what steps are
> >nessary to fly without the FAA crawling up my butt?
>
> Go through the entire certification process, including demonstrating that
> the engine meets all the Part 33 and many of the Part 23 requirements.
>
> Otherwise, your plane is permanently(*) in the Experimental category.
> What's worse, it cannot be licensed as a Experimental Amateur-Built
> aircraft because you did not build the airplane, hence it has to be
> licensed in one of the other Experimental sub-categories (R&D, Market
> Research, etc.). Requirements for each sub-category differ, but they are
> all more-restrictive than the Amateur-Built one. Depending on how your
> FSDO interprets the rules, you may be restricted to solo flight only
and/or
> have to get permission for every flight beyond a limited distance from the
> based airport.
>
> (*) It actually can have the original engine re-installed and revert back
> to its original certification.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

And I believe you have to go through the certification process every year.

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:

> What's so bad about Mazda rotaries? AFAIK, homebuilders are still
> successfully using them in a variety of designs; apparently there are
> plenty available.

Nothing if they are built correctly using the correct materials.

The problem was the original engines had both material and manufacturing
problems. As I recall (remember, this was about 30 years ago) the material
problem was in the rotor tips and the manufacturing problem was something
to do with parallelism.

It was common to see piles of engine crates for warrenty replacement at
the local Mazda dealer.

By the time they got the problems sorted out, the bad mouth was out and
the market dried up.

> I only have experience with one Mazda, a little coupe I owned back in
> the 70's. It ran great for three years until my ex drove it into a
> flooded underpass in Houston. Smooth and fast as hell (the car, not my
> ex) but a little rough on gas mileage, it had a 4-barrel carb on it the
> size of a dinner plate.

The engine, when working, has a great power to weight ratio but lousy
mileage.

The early problems and the "gas crises" of the mid 70's pretty much doomed
the Mazda rotary.

> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
> (remove pants to reply by email)


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.