Re: Light weight low cost four stroke engines, good Rotax replacements.

[[email protected]]

For $1750, you can have a decent experimental A-65-8F, which type of
engine has flown more than one aircraft for over 1000 hours. AND has
gobs of premade accessories AND actually puts out 65 horsepower AND
doesn't require "fudging" to make weight, like nearly all auto engine
conversions, do.

Drew

mastic wrote:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored
>
> I thought this would be interesting for people on this group.
>
> The Geo/Suzuki one litre engine weighs a little more than a Rotax
> 582, it produces 62 HP normally aspirated but with a better, flatter
> torque curve.
> Both bolt on gearbox and cog belt redrives and all other aircraft
> conversion parts are available for very reasonable cost. Turbo
> versions are available also. Gearbox type redrives for around US$1750-
> The Geo/Suzuki engine uses about half the fuel that the two stroke
> engines use.
> The 1.3 litre four cylinder Suzuki engine beats the Rotax 912 in
> power and weight, again both gearbox and belt type redrives are
> available.
> All those advantages plus flying engines with the hours up to prove
> them and last but not lease, far, far cheaper than a Rotax.
> There is a Yahoo group about these fantastic little engines used in
> aircraft, it is a very active and helpful group.
> One person on the group has over 1000 hours on one installation.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored

[Morgans]

> wrote

> For $1750, you can have a decent experimental A-65-8F

Yeah, where?
--
Jim in NC

[W P Dixon]

I'd like to find one of those too!!!!!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>
>> For $1750, you can have a decent experimental A-65-8F
>
> Yeah, where?
> --
> Jim in NC

[Rob Turk]

"mastic" <donttry@thisaddress> wrote in message
...
> Light weight low cost four stroke engines, good Rotax replacements.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored
>

Are you done already, spamming every newsgroups on Usenet and Yahoo?!?

[Jerry Springer]

mastic wrote:
> Light weight low cost four stroke engines, good Rotax replacements.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored
>
> I thought this would be interesting for people on this group.
>
> The Geo/Suzuki one litre engine weighs a little more than a Rotax
> 582, it produces 62 HP normally aspirated but with a better, flatter
> torque curve.
> Both bolt on gearbox and cog belt redrives and all other aircraft
> conversion parts are available for very reasonable cost. Turbo
> versions are available also. Gearbox type redrives for around US$1750-
> The Geo/Suzuki engine uses about half the fuel that the two stroke
> engines use.
> The 1.3 litre four cylinder Suzuki engine beats the Rotax 912 in
> power and weight, again both gearbox and belt type redrives are
> available.
> All those advantages plus flying engines with the hours up to prove
> them and last but not lease, far, far cheaper than a Rotax.
> There is a Yahoo group about these fantastic little engines used in
> aircraft, it is a very active and helpful group.
> One person on the group has over 1000 hours on one installation.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored
>


Pretty funny, the only thing not tolerated on your Yahoo group is spam,
but that does not seem to bother you when it come to spamming other
groups. I really doubt you will read this as you also have a phony
email and return address.

[[email protected]]

I've purchased three halfway decent A-65s for an average of $1500,
each, on Barnstormers, within the last six months. One of them was
"good to go" as an experimental, and two of them would require about
$4000 to make them good, serviceable CERTIFIED with complete logbooks
aircraft engines.

The fact that some people lack the ability to scrounge, and keep eyes
open and cash ready, doesn't mean that the rest of us cannot.

The cost of the auto conversions, especially the "kits" just doesn't
justify the risk involved. If they were truly less expensive, I'd be
all over them. Unfortunately, they cost about the same, or more, than
buying more proven aircraft power.

[W P Dixon]

Well sure I can find an engine for 1500 if I am able to put another
4000-5000 into it. I kinda had the impression of an Cont. 65 for the first
number . I've seen them ready to put on a plane for 3000-3500. Finding one
ready to go for about 1500 would be a good scrounge!!

I am waiting to get the Engine out of my wife's Geo to use on a Jenny. I
always tell her if she sees a wreck coming to please make sure she points my
airplane engine in a good direction! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've purchased three halfway decent A-65s for an average of $1500,
> each, on Barnstormers, within the last six months. One of them was
> "good to go" as an experimental, and two of them would require about
> $4000 to make them good, serviceable CERTIFIED with complete logbooks
> aircraft engines.
>
> The fact that some people lack the ability to scrounge, and keep eyes
> open and cash ready, doesn't mean that the rest of us cannot.
>
> The cost of the auto conversions, especially the "kits" just doesn't
> justify the risk involved. If they were truly less expensive, I'd be
> all over them. Unfortunately, they cost about the same, or more, than
> buying more proven aircraft power.
>

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:13:38 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>>I've purchased three halfway decent A-65s for an average of $1500,
>>each, on Barnstormers, within the last six months. One of them was
>>"good to go" as an experimental, and two of them would require about
>>$4000 to make them good, serviceable CERTIFIED with complete logbooks
>>aircraft engines.
>
>What was it about the engines that made them experimental?
>Had they been modified?
>
An engine is "experimental" if the data plate is removed or it is
repaired by a non-certified facility and/or has no log-book.
If it still has the data plate it can be returned to certified status
with a complete "certified" overhaul, if I remember correctly.
>T o d d P a t t i s t
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>___
>Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
>Share what you learn.

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-06-30 10:55:42 -0400, Richard Riley > said:

> Locally, a Cozy Mk 4 builder got hit with a property tax assessment on
> the airplane of something like $250,000.

I remember hearing about that guy. What ever happened with that?

California is a weird place. I got a copy of one of my sports car mags
and it has a fawning article about a developer who keeps his Ferraris
in a hangar at SMO -- federally subsidized, it's cheaper than any other
commercial real estate in SoCal.

It's nice to know that we all pay fuel and other taxes so that this
jerk has a place to tow his sports cars to when they break down.
--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[John Ammeter]

Richard,

That's a really great idea...

John



On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:10:48 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:39:41 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote:
>:
>:Do assessors really go out to your airport and look at data
>:plates on engines? I'd just say it was a homebuilt and let
>:them think gray tape, baling wire and old sheets for fabric
>:covering :-)
>
>The assessor doesn't - but the DAR does when he does the certification
>on the plane to begin with.
>
>He lists the engine on your certification, along with your name and
>address, and the N number.
>
>When you rent a hangar you have to have an N number for them to put on
>the lease. The county goes through the leases, looks up all the N
>numbers, sees what kinds of airplanes are in which hangars, takes a
>stab at a value and sends an annual bill for 1% to the owner.
>
>So it's wise to not only list the engine as an "exp-75" but to list
>the plane as a "Smith Runabout." If you list the plane as a Lancair
>IV-P, and the engine as a Continental TSIO-550, you're guaranteed to
>owe the county about $4k per year. If it's something they've never
>heard of, you have a shot.
>
>Of course, there's nothing to stop you from listing your Lancair IV-P
>as a Hummelbird, or an Air Camper, or Drifter. Just something to
>think about.

[Rich S.]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
>
> He may well reduce the value if you reply to his letter with something
> like "The aircraft referenced is a one of a kind homebuilt. It is
> currently disassembled and being repaired. It's only value is as
> scrap, since it's major componants were not arcraft grade."

Hard to believe the same person would give advice on how to cheat on one's
taxes in one posting, while getting upset over storing cars in a hangar to
save money in another.

:California is a weird place. I got a copy of one of my sports car mags
:and it has a fawning article about a developer who keeps his Ferraris
:in a hangar at SMO -- federally subsidized, it's cheaper than any other
:commercial real estate in SoCal.

> Grrrrrrrr. My blood pressure rises.

Are there two "Richard Riley's" out there??? The world wonders.

Rich "I'm of two minds about that!" S.

[Rich S.]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...

> "The aircraft referenced is a one of a kind homebuilt. It is
> currently disassembled and being repaired. It's only value is as
> scrap, since it's major componants were not arcraft grade."

<snipped here and there>

> For the storing of cars - I'm not angry at the rich developer. I'm
> angry at Santa Monica Airport. On one hand they tell tennants that
> they MUST store airplanes in the hangars and nothing else. If you go
> on a trip, you can't store the car you came to the airport in inside
> the hangar.

Ergo, it would be illegal to store "scrap" in a hangar and you would fall
into the same class as the Ferrari owner.

You can't have it both ways, my friend.

Are you trying to say that if you presented the assessor with an appraisal
from a source qualified in aircraft valuation and accompanied it with comps
(little real estate talk there) it would have less effect on his assessment
than a note such as you suggest above?

Rich S.

[[email protected]]

It's value is as scrap - but it still has an N number. So it's still
an airplane.

Now if the evil developer wants to register the Ferarri as an airplane,
put 3" N numbers on it, put an airspeed indicator, altimiter and a
compass on the dashboard, I'm completely with him. You can register
ANYTHING as an airplane. I'm told there's a broom and a carpet out
there with N numbers, hanging from a ceiling. If the airport says
things in hangars must be registered as airplanes, they should stick to
it. Or not. Not different rules for celebrities and rich people.

And an independent appraisal may well have more impact than a note from
the owner. Neither one may have ANY impact. After the prototype
Berkut was destroyed (and it was completely, throroughly destroyed, the
only things salvagable were hydraulic fittings) we got an propert tax
bill for it. We sent photos of the pieces, they sent the SAME BILL
with interest. It only went away when the corporate owner went through
Chapter 7.

[Rich S.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> It's value is as scrap - but it still has an N number. So it's still
> an airplane.

Horsepoop. Taking the cowling off doesn't make it scrap and you know it. You
are advocating cheating while saying "Grrr" about someone else doing the
same thing.

I rest my case.

Rich S.

[[email protected]]

So what DOES make it scrap? And, once it's valued as scrap, what makes
it not scrap again?

[[email protected]]

Richard Riley wrote:
> ...
>
> The assessor can assign any value to your homebuilt he wants, and
> there's no appeal. If he decides that your RV-3 has a Lycoming, and
> so does a new Piper Malibu Mirage, you get a bill for $7,000, and if
> you fail to pay it he will confiscate your house. Again, no appeal is
> available. So if I give him information that moves him toward a more
> realistic valuation of my airplane, I think I'm doing something good.
>
> These are the same people that tried to levy property tax on Boeing
> for communication satellites that are in orbit over Africa. Their
> theory was that the sats were merely stored in orbit, and were
> actually housed in El Segundo

"Tried"? If there is no appeal, what stopped them?

--

FF