The death of the A-65? [Archive]

November 12th 05, 02:03 PM

You can grind an A-65 to .010 under, then again to .020 under--- and
get bearings for them. There are a few cranks left around. I just
removed a crankshaft from a C-85 for replacement with an O-200
crankshaft. You can use a C-85 crank in the A-65.

As soon as they get so scarce it makes the investment worth it, ECI or
Superior or somebody will start making cranks. As easy as it is to
tool up nowadays with all these computer-controlled machine shops, I
don't understand why A-65's, A-75's, and A-80's are not being
manufactured. They are great engines, much more dependable and
torquier than their competitors like the R and the J. And they turn
at reasonable RPM's for good prop aesthetics and good prop efficiency.
AND --- they will sip mogas at 4 gallons per hour.

[email protected]

November 12th 05, 07:03 PM

Somewhere I read that an O-200 crank fits the A-65 series. Would
someone here know about that? Or was that a C-90 that it fit?

Dan

Bret Ludwig

November 12th 05, 09:07 PM

wrote:
> You can grind an A-65 to .010 under, then again to .020 under--- and
> get bearings for them. There are a few cranks left around. I just
> removed a crankshaft from a C-85 for replacement with an O-200
> crankshaft. You can use a C-85 crank in the A-65.
>
> As soon as they get so scarce it makes the investment worth it, ECI or
> Superior or somebody will start making cranks. As easy as it is to
> tool up nowadays with all these computer-controlled machine shops, I
> don't understand why A-65's, A-75's, and A-80's are not being
> manufactured. They are great engines, much more dependable and
> torquier than their competitors like the R and the J. And they turn
> at reasonable RPM's for good prop aesthetics and good prop efficiency.
> AND --- they will sip mogas at 4 gallons per hour.

If they are so great why aren't they used in gensets and irrrigation
pumps and welders?

If you were going to reproduce a Continental engine it should be the
C-85, and the primary market would be restored antiques, which means a
type certificated engine. If I were going to build a homebuilt I would
use an engine I can get parts at Pep Boys for it. With a geared prop
drive that means if I put the plane on its nose, I replace a prop and
sprocket and not a crankshaft.

Kyle Boatright

November 12th 05, 09:18 PM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> You can grind an A-65 to .010 under, then again to .020 under--- and
>> get bearings for them. There are a few cranks left around. I just
>> removed a crankshaft from a C-85 for replacement with an O-200
>> crankshaft. You can use a C-85 crank in the A-65.
>>
>> As soon as they get so scarce it makes the investment worth it, ECI or
>> Superior or somebody will start making cranks. As easy as it is to
>> tool up nowadays with all these computer-controlled machine shops, I
>> don't understand why A-65's, A-75's, and A-80's are not being
>> manufactured. They are great engines, much more dependable and
>> torquier than their competitors like the R and the J. And they turn
>> at reasonable RPM's for good prop aesthetics and good prop efficiency.
>> AND --- they will sip mogas at 4 gallons per hour.
>
> If they are so great why aren't they used in gensets and irrrigation
> pumps and welders?
>
> If you were going to reproduce a Continental engine it should be the
> C-85, and the primary market would be restored antiques, which means a
> type certificated engine. If I were going to build a homebuilt I would
> use an engine I can get parts at Pep Boys for it. With a geared prop
> drive that means if I put the plane on its nose, I replace a prop and
> sprocket and not a crankshaft.

Brett, you come up with some amazing solutions. Exactly what engine would
you use?

Capt. Geoffry Thorpe

November 12th 05, 10:31 PM

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>>
>> If you were going to reproduce a Continental engine it should be the
>> C-85, and the primary market would be restored antiques, which means a
>> type certificated engine. If I were going to build a homebuilt I would
>> use an engine I can get parts at Pep Boys for it. With a geared prop
>> drive that means if I put the plane on its nose, I replace a prop and
>> sprocket and not a crankshaft.
>
> Brett, you come up with some amazing solutions. Exactly what engine would
> you use?

A Chevy with the transmission still attached? The only shortcoming (besides
weight) is you have to trim the airplane such that you to need only right
rudder since your left foot will be busy on the clutch.

:-}
--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

Bret Ludwig

November 12th 05, 10:33 PM

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >> You can grind an A-65 to .010 under, then again to .020 under--- and
> >> get bearings for them. There are a few cranks left around. I just
> >> removed a crankshaft from a C-85 for replacement with an O-200
> >> crankshaft. You can use a C-85 crank in the A-65.
> >>
> >> As soon as they get so scarce it makes the investment worth it, ECI or
> >> Superior or somebody will start making cranks. As easy as it is to
> >> tool up nowadays with all these computer-controlled machine shops, I
> >> don't understand why A-65's, A-75's, and A-80's are not being
> >> manufactured. They are great engines, much more dependable and
> >> torquier than their competitors like the R and the J. And they turn
> >> at reasonable RPM's for good prop aesthetics and good prop efficiency.
> >> AND --- they will sip mogas at 4 gallons per hour.
> >
> > If they are so great why aren't they used in gensets and irrrigation
> > pumps and welders?
> >
> > If you were going to reproduce a Continental engine it should be the
> > C-85, and the primary market would be restored antiques, which means a
> > type certificated engine. If I were going to build a homebuilt I would
> > use an engine I can get parts at Pep Boys for it. With a geared prop
> > drive that means if I put the plane on its nose, I replace a prop and
> > sprocket and not a crankshaft.
>
> Brett, you come up with some amazing solutions. Exactly what engine would
> you use?

On a homebuilt? Depends on the size and design goals, but I understand
the Suzuki is working out pretty well for some of the small fry, as is
the Subaru.

If money wasn't an issue I'd be looking at the Thielert TAE125 or the
Deltahawk diesel, but if money wasn't an issue I'd buy a production
aircraft. Just me, personally.

Scott

November 12th 05, 10:46 PM

Because they're TOO GOOD to waste them in a genset, irrigation pump or
welder.

Why do you say the C-85 should be reproduced rather than the A-65? Lots
of restored "antiques" used the A-65...Luscombe, Aeronca, Taylorcraft,
Piper, etc.

If you were "going to build a homebuilt" as you say, which indicates to
me you haven't or aren't planning to build a homebuilt, why are you
hanging around a homebuilt newsgroup, offering advice on something you
have no experience with? Ever fly behind an A-65 (or in front of one if
it's a pusher)?

Scott

Bret Ludwig wrote:

>
>
> If they are so great why aren't they used in gensets and irrrigation
> pumps and welders?
>
> If you were going to reproduce a Continental engine it should be the
> C-85, and the primary market would be restored antiques, which means a
> type certificated engine. If I were going to build a homebuilt I would
> use an engine I can get parts at Pep Boys for it. With a geared prop
> drive that means if I put the plane on its nose, I replace a prop and
> sprocket and not a crankshaft.
>

Bret Ludwig

November 12th 05, 11:20 PM

Scott wrote:
> Because they're TOO GOOD to waste them in a genset, irrigation pump or
> welder.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Actually I'm having you on. Continentals were used in many military
gensets and GPUs. There was a flat twin using C-85 jugs that was
produced in large numbers for a dedicated Army radio genset giving B+
and heater voltages for a specific transmitter truck and a O-470
derivative used in a genset used by MASH units. Lycs were used in lots
of ground ramp applications and in an airdroppable rescue boat. They
were all pains in the ass and Uncle Sugar got rid of them forthwith.
Liquid cooled en-bloc engines were far more reliable and that's why
split crankcases and bolt on one piece jugs left general purpose engine
design circa 1925 or so.

>
> Why do you say the C-85 should be reproduced rather than the A-65? Lots
> of restored "antiques" used the A-65...Luscombe, Aeronca, Taylorcraft,
> Piper, etc.
>
> If you were "going to build a homebuilt" as you say, which indicates to
> me you haven't or aren't planning to build a homebuilt, why are you
> hanging around a homebuilt newsgroup, offering advice on something you
> have no experience with? Ever fly behind an A-65 (or in front of one if
> it's a pusher)?

I think I soloed behind a 75 that started out as a 65. I worked in
FBO's and once for about three weeks in the Cessna Pawnee Ave. plant. I
quit because I literally couldn't take the heat-there was no A/C and it
was August in Wichita. Wichita was the most depressing piece of ****
fundamentalist-ridden town I have ever lived in my life, besides, no
one flies. 90% of the production staff not only weren't pilots, they
had never been up in the plane they built and had no desire to do so.

Most of the aircraft with 65s originally later got upgrades and many
got electrical systems and engins with generator and starter pads. Then
people got stupid and tore out the wiring, and reconverted them to the
original configuration so they lost lights and radios and could fly
around like an ultralight. If the airframe is certificated or STC'd to
take the 85 you are dumb to forfeit the additional horsepower, unless
you have a source for cheap "white gas" the 65 would burn and the later
ones wouldn't. As you know the 65, 75, 85 and up are largely the same
engine. I think the 65 has lower compression pistons.

Some airplanes are really best off with this engine, but designing a
new one around one today is no more sensible than using an OX-5, or a
Gnome-Rhone rotary radial, or even the pretty reliable six cylinder
Ranger. Do you drive a Model A flathead four powered car to work every
day?

Are the airboat guys still running these Continentals?

Matt Whiting

November 13th 05, 12:27 AM

Michael Horowitz wrote:

> As I understand it, you can grind a scored shaft once and install
> oversized bearings, but that's the limit of grinding, then you need a
> replacement.
>
> I believe I"ve seen (sometime in the distant past) cranks offered for
> sale, but I may be mistaken. Are they getting hard to find?
>
> As the A-65 is no longer made, what does this mean for the fleet of
> A-65 owners? Do they swap it out for an engine that is still
> supported? - Mike
>
>

You could likely have a crank custom made for an experimental, but I'm
guessing the cost would be high even by aircraft standards.

Matt

Scott

November 13th 05, 01:01 AM

Most airboaters up here use Lycomings of the O-320 and O-360 variety.

What's wrong with 1930's technology? It's time proven. I'm not saying
there isn't room for improvements, but look at all the horsing around
people have had to do to get an auto engine into an airframe. Blow a
(water) hose and you're cooked...In aviation, there is something to be
said for simplicity. My A-65 or my C-85-8 never had an alternator or
starter fail to date. Top that with ANY modern auto engine ;)

Lights and radios don't make airplanes fly...

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>
>>Because they're TOO GOOD to waste them in a genset, irrigation pump or
>>welder.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!
>
> Actually I'm having you on. Continentals were used in many military
> gensets and GPUs. There was a flat twin using C-85 jugs that was
> produced in large numbers for a dedicated Army radio genset giving B+
> and heater voltages for a specific transmitter truck and a O-470
> derivative used in a genset used by MASH units. Lycs were used in lots
> of ground ramp applications and in an airdroppable rescue boat. They
> were all pains in the ass and Uncle Sugar got rid of them forthwith.
> Liquid cooled en-bloc engines were far more reliable and that's why
> split crankcases and bolt on one piece jugs left general purpose engine
> design circa 1925 or so.
>
>
>>Why do you say the C-85 should be reproduced rather than the A-65? Lots
>>of restored "antiques" used the A-65...Luscombe, Aeronca, Taylorcraft,
>>Piper, etc.
>>
>>If you were "going to build a homebuilt" as you say, which indicates to
>>me you haven't or aren't planning to build a homebuilt, why are you
>>hanging around a homebuilt newsgroup, offering advice on something you
>>have no experience with? Ever fly behind an A-65 (or in front of one if
>>it's a pusher)?
>
>
> I think I soloed behind a 75 that started out as a 65. I worked in
> FBO's and once for about three weeks in the Cessna Pawnee Ave. plant. I
> quit because I literally couldn't take the heat-there was no A/C and it
> was August in Wichita. Wichita was the most depressing piece of ****
> fundamentalist-ridden town I have ever lived in my life, besides, no
> one flies. 90% of the production staff not only weren't pilots, they
> had never been up in the plane they built and had no desire to do so.
>
> Most of the aircraft with 65s originally later got upgrades and many
> got electrical systems and engins with generator and starter pads. Then
> people got stupid and tore out the wiring, and reconverted them to the
> original configuration so they lost lights and radios and could fly
> around like an ultralight. If the airframe is certificated or STC'd to
> take the 85 you are dumb to forfeit the additional horsepower, unless
> you have a source for cheap "white gas" the 65 would burn and the later
> ones wouldn't. As you know the 65, 75, 85 and up are largely the same
> engine. I think the 65 has lower compression pistons.
>
> Some airplanes are really best off with this engine, but designing a
> new one around one today is no more sensible than using an OX-5, or a
> Gnome-Rhone rotary radial, or even the pretty reliable six cylinder
> Ranger. Do you drive a Model A flathead four powered car to work every
> day?
>
> Are the airboat guys still running these Continentals?
>

Morgans

November 13th 05, 02:19 AM

"Scott" > wrote

> Blow a (water) hose and you're cooked

Bull. Replace your hoses every five years, and you will never blow a hose.

Even if you do, you can make enough power to do and emergency landing. You
may have cooked the engine, but they will run for quite a while without
water.

I don't see auto engines blowing a jug, or breaking a rod, or hanging a
valve at low hours, like lycosauruses.

There is no reason for all of the engine out situations that airplane
engines have, IMO.
--
Jim in NC

Scott

November 13th 05, 04:40 AM

My point was simplicity. It doesn't get much simpler than an A-65.
I've heard of auto engines blowing rods through the block...I've heard
of auto engines burning off a valve head (equivalent of blowing a
jug)...I've heard of stuck valves...yes, changing things like hoses and
belts can prevent a failure down the road, but face it, **** happens to
airplane engines and auto engines. If you fly or drive long enough, I
bet either has an equal chance to leave you walking at some time in your
career.

Morgans wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote
>
>
>> Blow a (water) hose and you're cooked
>
>
> Bull. Replace your hoses every five years, and you will never blow a hose.
>
> Even if you do, you can make enough power to do and emergency landing. You
> may have cooked the engine, but they will run for quite a while without
> water.
>
> I don't see auto engines blowing a jug, or breaking a rod, or hanging a
> valve at low hours, like lycosauruses.
>
> There is no reason for all of the engine out situations that airplane
> engines have, IMO.

Morgans

November 13th 05, 06:20 AM

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> My point was simplicity. It doesn't get much simpler than an A-65.
> I've heard of auto engines blowing rods through the block...I've heard
> of auto engines burning off a valve head (equivalent of blowing a
> jug)...I've heard of stuck valves...yes, changing things like hoses and
> belts can prevent a failure down the road, but face it, **** happens to
> airplane engines and auto engines. If you fly or drive long enough, I
> bet either has an equal chance to leave you walking at some time in your
> career.

If you have heard of these things happening, I would ask at how many miles,
and what abuse had been given to the engine, like no oil, not enough oil
changes, over revving, and what kind of engine?
--
Jim in NC

Scott

November 13th 05, 01:17 PM

http://www.datatown.com/chrysler/

"Some of these engines [BMW] failed catastrophically, with punctured
blocks and huge clouds of burnt oil and coolant pouring from the engine
compartment. Based on my careful reading of the one-hundred failures to
date, at least 13% of documented failures posed a serious hazard." as
read on the following website: http://yoy.com/yoy/auto/m3_failwhat.shtml

"Buyers should stay away from bargain-priced new and used minivans that
require frequent and costly repairs. Chief among these are Chrysler
minivans, Ford Windstars, GM front-drives, and the Mercury
Villager/Nissan Quest. Chrysler models had engine, drivetrain,
electrical and fuel system, AC, brake, and body deficiencies galore.
Windstars are noted for engine, automatic transmission, brake, steering,
suspension, and fuel system failures. The newest Quests are selling
poorly and use many failure-prone Altima/Maxima parts. VW Campers are a
good idea poorly executed. These minivans are nicely laid-out, but they
aren't reliable and servicing is practically non-existent. Plus, they
are costly." from: http://www.lemonaidcars.com/update.htm

If I'm reading you correctly, are you saying that poor maintenance is
the cause of all or most auto engine failures and that airplane engine
failures are caused by engine design problems?

Morgans wrote:

> "Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>My point was simplicity. It doesn't get much simpler than an A-65.
>>I've heard of auto engines blowing rods through the block...I've heard
>>of auto engines burning off a valve head (equivalent of blowing a
>>jug)...I've heard of stuck valves...yes, changing things like hoses and
>>belts can prevent a failure down the road, but face it, **** happens to
>>airplane engines and auto engines. If you fly or drive long enough, I
>>bet either has an equal chance to leave you walking at some time in your
>>career.
>
>
>
> If you have heard of these things happening, I would ask at how many miles,
> and what abuse had been given to the engine, like no oil, not enough oil
> changes, over revving, and what kind of engine?

[email protected]

November 13th 05, 07:34 PM

>I don't see auto engines blowing a jug, or breaking a rod, or hanging a
>valve at low hours, like lycosauruses.
>There is no reason for all of the engine out situations that airplane
>engines have, IMO.

I see way more cars at the side of the road than I hear of
airplanes having engine failures, even with making allowance for the
many times more cars than airplanes in operation. Aircraft engines fail
mostly for the following reasons:
1. Out of gas. Not an engine fault, is it?
2. Carb ice. That's a pilot's mistake, not the engine's.
3. Low oil pressure. Usually due to running out of oil, either because
it wasn't checked and topped up, or because the engine wasn't looked
after and it leaked out through the same leaks it had been leaking from
for several years, or through a blown oil hose that had been in service
for 28 years. They are 5-year items.
4. Mechanical failure. This come is a wide variety of expensive noises,
and most of them have to do with poor maintenance, or infrequent
flying, which causes corrosion internally that leads to the failure.
Mechanical failure is actually relatively rare. It's the first three
causes above that bring most airplanes down where engines are
concerned. Remember that most crashes are weather or pilot induced and
have nothing to do with the engine at all.
As far as blowing jugs or breaking rods or hanging valves: Try
making an auto conversion run at 75 power for a few hours and see what
begins to happen. They weren't designed for that, and the guys who
successfuly convert and run them for several hundred hours have had to
get around a LOT of problems.

Dan (Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, homebuilder, and Flight
instructor, with installing a Soob in GlaStar experience)

Scott

November 13th 05, 10:53 PM

Thanks, Dan. Well stated. I agree. I am NOT against auto engines in
airplanes (I think Jim Morgan may have thought that is what I was
saying). I feel like you do, it IS possible, but most of the articles I
have read sound like it took some dinking around to get everything
working acceptably, but it eventually was done.

Scott

wrote:
>>I don't see auto engines blowing a jug, or breaking a rod, or hanging a
>>valve at low hours, like lycosauruses.
>>There is no reason for all of the engine out situations that airplane
>>engines have, IMO.
>
>
> I see way more cars at the side of the road than I hear of
> airplanes having engine failures, even with making allowance for the
> many times more cars than airplanes in operation. Aircraft engines fail
> mostly for the following reasons:
> 1. Out of gas. Not an engine fault, is it?
> 2. Carb ice. That's a pilot's mistake, not the engine's.
> 3. Low oil pressure. Usually due to running out of oil, either because
> it wasn't checked and topped up, or because the engine wasn't looked
> after and it leaked out through the same leaks it had been leaking from
> for several years, or through a blown oil hose that had been in service
> for 28 years. They are 5-year items.
> 4. Mechanical failure. This come is a wide variety of expensive noises,
> and most of them have to do with poor maintenance, or infrequent
> flying, which causes corrosion internally that leads to the failure.
> Mechanical failure is actually relatively rare. It's the first three
> causes above that bring most airplanes down where engines are
> concerned. Remember that most crashes are weather or pilot induced and
> have nothing to do with the engine at all.
> As far as blowing jugs or breaking rods or hanging valves: Try
> making an auto conversion run at 75 power for a few hours and see what
> begins to happen. They weren't designed for that, and the guys who
> successfuly convert and run them for several hundred hours have had to
> get around a LOT of problems.
>
> Dan (Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, homebuilder, and Flight
> instructor, with installing a Soob in GlaStar experience)
>

Tony Goetz

November 14th 05, 12:11 AM

Dan Thomas wrote:

> >I don't see auto engines blowing a jug, or breaking a rod, or hanging a
> >valve at low hours, like lycosauruses.
> >There is no reason for all of the engine out situations that airplane
> >engines have, IMO.
> As far as blowing jugs or breaking rods or hanging valves: Try
> making an auto conversion run at 75 power for a few hours and see what
> begins to happen. They weren't designed for that, and the guys who
> successfuly convert and run them for several hundred hours have had to
> get around a LOT of problems.

For what it's worth regarding catastrophic auto engine failure, in May of
this year I got to experience it first hand in my car. Driving down the
freeway at 70mph, I heard a God awful noise and realized it was my car. I
managed to nurse it across 3 or 4 lanes of the freeway to the shoulder. As I
coasted to a stop and turned off the engine, steam started pouring out. I
popped the hood (yes, a very dumb idea in hindsight given the potentially
scalding coolant that was loose) and saw that the engine was so hot it had
melted through a rubber emissions control hose containing fuel/air and
ignited. There were also flames down at my engine block. I was able to get
them out without hosting a car-b-que on the 91 freeway.

What happened? The engine threw a rod which punched a quarter sized hole in
the side front of my engine, donating all of my oil to the freeway below.
Perhaps some of it sprayed up on the hot exhaust manifold and caught fire -
I'm not sure what the source of fuel for the fire was. I didn't especially
care at the time. The failure also caused my radiator fan to throw a blade
(plastic) into my radiator, cracking it open.

This was in my 1991 Geo Prizm. (Ooooh...ahhhh!) It had 156,000+ miles on it
and had been used since '91 to drive LA freeways and side streets on a daily
basis. The last two years of its life were spent going from my house to my
college 35 miles away 5 days a week on freeways. So obviously, it was
pushing the end of its useful life and had been driven hard. It was meant to
be an economy car.

Maybe the failure was a fluke, maybe it was perfectly reasonable given the
car's life. But when I hear about Geo conversions for homebuilts now, I tend
to look the other way. Sure it can be done, but it was enough to keep me
away from them.

-Tony Goetz

Morgans

November 14th 05, 02:54 AM

"Scott" > wrote

> If I'm reading you correctly, are you saying that poor maintenance is
> the cause of all or most auto engine failures and that airplane engine
> failures are caused by engine design problems?

Long to short, Yes. That said, there are many engines that have a much
better track record for reliability. The Chevy 4.3, Chevy 5.7, ford V-6,
with 4.2, (or something like that) Ford 351 come to mind, off the top of my
head.

When these engines get 80,000 miles, (or perhaps 1500 hours would be close)
the possibility of catastrophic failure begins to rise. Time for a cheap,
simple overhaul, when compared to the lycosarus and it's ilk.

That said, I realize the devil is in the details, with the PRSU, and other
systems having problems, without good engineering.

The Lycosarus has problems, IMHO, because of it's ultra emphasis on light
weight, and many other problems due to faulty parts. (seems like there is
always a bolt, or crankshaft, or something with an AD on it) Add on, the
ever present problems of finding truly qualified people to work on them.

On the "old reliable" airplane engines,carbs freeze up without precise
procedures being followed, magnetos fail, heads get too hot and cause valve
problems, or warped or cracked heads, detonation destroys pistons, jugs blow
off.

Modern auto engines don't have these problems, due to (IMHO) the fact that
they are produced in such large numbers, and some are raced. With a backup
ignition and electrical system, they keep running. Don't even start with
the old "auto engines are not built to run that hard" stuff, because on
boats, and airboats, and some airplanes, they do, without catastrophic
engine failures.

It is time for people to get modern engine's installation details worked
out, and use them. Design a system; buy some of it, and engineer the rest.
Test the hell out of it while on the ground. Put it in a plane and fly it.
Some are doing this, with varied results, but usually the engine itself
failing is not the problem.

Such an undertaking is not for everyone. I hope I get a chance to do it.

Soapbox off. <g>
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

November 14th 05, 03:27 AM

> wrote

> I see way more cars at the side of the road than I hear of
> airplanes having engine failures, even with making allowance for the
> many times more cars than airplanes in operation.

Most have exceeded their reliable life, IMHO.

> Aircraft engines fail
> mostly for the following reasons:
> 1. Out of gas. Not an engine fault, is it?

Can't argue that point! <g>

> 2. Carb ice. That's a pilot's mistake, not the engine's.

True, but with *modern* fuel injection, that isn't an issue.

> 3. Low oil pressure. Usually due to running out of oil, either because
> it wasn't checked and topped up, or because the engine wasn't looked
> after and it leaked out through the same leaks it had been leaking from
> for several years, or through a blown oil hose that had been in service
> for 28 years. They are 5-year items.

Auto engines don't use oil in the quanities that airplane engines do,
partially because they are aircooled, and have to have looser fits. Auto
engies with less than 1500 hours on them don't use a quart between oil
changes.

> 4. Mechanical failure. This come is a wide variety of expensive noises,
> and most of them have to do with poor maintenance, or infrequent
> flying, which causes corrosion internally that leads to the failure.
> Mechanical failure is actually relatively rare. It's the first three
> causes above that bring most airplanes down where engines are
> concerned. Remember that most crashes are weather or pilot induced and
> have nothing to do with the engine at all.

No arguement, on most of these points... except what you cite as "relatively
rare."

> As far as blowing jugs or breaking rods or hanging valves: Try
> making an auto conversion run at 75 power for a few hours and see what
> begins to happen. They weren't designed for that,

Sorry, I don't buy that. Production engines for some manufacturers go
through testing far more severe than what an air cooled airplane engine has
to go through. Corky Scott needs to post his 'ole "test story" again.

> and the guys who
> successfuly convert and run them for several hundred hours have had to
> get around a LOT of problems.

Mostly due to accesories failures, I'll bet.

> Dan (Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, homebuilder, and Flight
> instructor, with installing a Soob in GlaStar experience)

IMHO, soobs have weaknesses, and are putting out more power to weight (and
displacement) than what is reasonable to expect. Some are using them, with
fairly good result, but it would not be my first choice.

As a side note, I don't think that everyone flying lycosarus engines are
flying a death trap. I just think that it is time for engine development to
move on. The problem is (of course) that there is not high enough demand
(in numbers of units produced) for the manufacturers to get the development
costs paid off.

By the way, how did your installation go? Any stories to share?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

November 14th 05, 03:31 AM

"Tony Goetz" > wrote

> It had 156,000+ miles on it
> and had been used since '91 to drive LA freeways and side streets on a
daily
> basis.

> So obviously, it was
> pushing the end of its useful life and had been driven hard. It was meant
to
> be an economy car.
>
> Maybe the failure was a fluke, maybe it was perfectly reasonable given the
> car's life. But when I hear about Geo conversions for homebuilts now, I
tend
> to look the other way. Sure it can be done, but it was enough to keep me
> away from them.

That is about like flying a lycosarus 3500 hours, or more. Not a good idea,
if you life may depend on the engine.

Most people would have overhauled the airplane engine, way before then.
--
Jim in NC

Barnyard BOb -

November 14th 05, 03:51 PM

"Morgans" > wrote:

>It is time for people to get modern engine's installation details worked
>out, and use them. Design a system; buy some of it, and engineer the rest.
>Test the hell out of it while on the ground. Put it in a plane and fly it.
>Some are doing this, with varied results, but usually the engine itself
>failing is not the problem.
>
>Such an undertaking is not for everyone. I hope I get a chance to do it.
>
>Soapbox off. <g
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yada, yada, yada.
The blind still leading the blind, I see. :)

Please DO get busy doing SOMETHING....
besides blowing smoke up starry-eyed
auto-conversion tailpipe droolers.

Unka' BOb - 9000 reliable Lycosaurus hours

[email protected]

November 14th 05, 07:21 PM

>By the way, how did your [Soob] installation go? Any stories to share?

It was a major headache. The engine mounting was especially
knotty, since all the acceptable mount points are at the front (former
rear) of the engine, and there were 17 separate tubes welded together
when it was done. The average Lyc has 9. The redrive (RAF) put the prop
shaft centerline above the engine, so the engine had to sit low in the
cowling (a Glastar O-240 fit, modified) and there was no room for
mufflers of any size and effectiveness. Went through 7 iterations of
those, trying to get it quiet enough that we couldn't hear it flying 8
miles away. Cooling, on the other hand, came off well: I mounted the
radiator (full-sized Subaru) on a plenum, angled from the firewall so
that the only exit for air entering the cowl was through the rad. The
top of the rad was against the firewall, the bottom 7 or 8 inches out
from the lower edge. A lip on the cowl made sure of a low-pressure zone
there. That rad had to fit behind the engine and mount. The cooling
system has a thermostat on the inlet side of the engine, rather than
the outlet as in North American vehicles, and relied on return coolant
temp from the heater core to tell it when to open. So the core had to
have full flow all the time, making the cabin warm, or it had to have
bypass flow, which I did by making a four-ported shaft/poppet valve
controlled by a panel cable. Not simple at all.
The carb had been modified for manual mixture control, with an
EGT in the system, and a burned valve resulted when the mixture was set
too lean. I found that the valve (four per cylinder) was about the size
of a lawnmover engine valve, very thin and with a slender stem, and
would burn very easily compared to a Lyc's robust valve. Subaru could
get away with that using computerized fuel injection, which would make
sure the mixture never got that lean, but the FI system weighed 40
pounds, so had been ditched in favour of a carb. Since leaning was now
limited, the thing wasn't all that economical. Further, the engine had
to be cruised around 4700 RPM while redline was 5600, so cruise speed
suffered. The engine life would be low indeed if it was cruised close
to redline as we do with Lycs (Redline 2700, say, for an O-320, with
cruise at 2500 or so). Temperatures and fuel burn weren't good at high
RPMs.
I maintain full-time six Lycs, From O-235 to O-540, in a
flight-training operation (just about the worst environment for an
engine) and we have VERY few problems.

Dan

Richard Lamb

November 14th 05, 10:50 PM

Not to be unkind, Jim, but I believe that if auto engines were
run at the same continuous high power settings as aircraft
engines you'd see a lot more of the same kind of failures
as aircraft engines have had.

True, there is an emphisis on light weight for aircraft engines,
but the real bitch is the power load.

Having said that, I mostly design for VW engines.
Go figure...

Richard

Morgans

November 15th 05, 12:14 AM

"Barnyard BOb -" > wrote
>
> Yada, yada, yada.
> The blind still leading the blind, I see. :)
>
> Please DO get busy doing SOMETHING....
> besides blowing smoke up starry-eyed
> auto-conversion tailpipe droolers.

Unka' BOb! You HAVE truly risen from the dead!

I kept on wondering how long it would be, until you responded to the auto
engine bit. I missed it by two days!

How do you like our new MrV? Some case, huh?

So what'cha been up to, lately? Chasing little girls, or something?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

November 15th 05, 02:15 AM

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks, Dan. Well stated. I agree. I am NOT against auto engines in
> airplanes (I think Jim Morgan may have thought that is what I was
> saying). I feel like you do, it IS possible, but most of the articles I
> have read sound like it took some dinking around to get everything
> working acceptably, but it eventually was done.

No doubt, the devil is in the details for auto engine conversions. It can
be done, and has been done. If it was done more, it would become even more
reliable.

What we need is someone to get the bugs worked out, the put out plans on how
to do it, successfully. If it was done like that, it would be affordable;
to the type of person wanting to take these projects on, cost is everything.

There are some companies putting out reliable, complete auto engine
conversions, but the price is so high, they are over some people's engine
budgets.
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

November 15th 05, 03:16 AM

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > Because they're TOO GOOD to waste them in a genset, irrigation pump or
> > welder.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!
>
> Actually I'm having you on. Continentals were used in many military
> gensets and GPUs. There was a flat twin using C-85 jugs that was
> produced in large numbers for a dedicated Army radio genset giving B+
> and heater voltages for a specific transmitter truck and a O-470
> derivative used in a genset used by MASH units. Lycs were used in lots
> of ground ramp applications and in an airdroppable rescue boat. They
> were all pains in the ass and Uncle Sugar got rid of them forthwith.
> Liquid cooled en-bloc engines were far more reliable and that's why
> split crankcases and bolt on one piece jugs left general purpose engine
> design circa 1925 or so.

Ever seen a Rotax 912?
>
> >
> > Why do you say the C-85 should be reproduced rather than the A-65? Lots
> > of restored "antiques" used the A-65...Luscombe, Aeronca, Taylorcraft,
> > Piper, etc.
> >
> > If you were "going to build a homebuilt" as you say, which indicates to
> > me you haven't or aren't planning to build a homebuilt, why are you
> > hanging around a homebuilt newsgroup, offering advice on something you
> > have no experience with? Ever fly behind an A-65 (or in front of one if
> > it's a pusher)?
>
> I think I soloed behind a 75 that started out as a 65. I worked in
> FBO's and once for about three weeks in the Cessna Pawnee Ave. plant. I
> quit because I literally couldn't take the heat-there was no A/C and it
> was August in Wichita. Wichita was the most depressing piece of ****
> fundamentalist-ridden town I have ever lived in my life, besides, no
> one flies. 90% of the production staff not only weren't pilots, they
> had never been up in the plane they built and had no desire to do so.
>
> Most of the aircraft with 65s originally later got upgrades and many
> got electrical systems and engins with generator and starter pads. Then
> people got stupid and tore out the wiring, and reconverted them to the
> original configuration so they lost lights and radios and could fly
> around like an ultralight. If the airframe is certificated or STC'd to
> take the 85 you are dumb to forfeit the additional horsepower, unless
> you have a source for cheap "white gas" the 65 would burn and the later
> ones wouldn't. As you know the 65, 75, 85 and up are largely the same
> engine. I think the 65 has lower compression pistons.

A-65 and A-75 have the same compression ratio: 6.3:1. A-75 has drilled
rods and a few more simple mods. It turns faster, which theoretically
gives 10 more HP -- at 2600 RPM. If you use a 72CK42 prop from an
A-65 on an A-75, all it will do is deliver 65 HP @ 2300 rpm at sea
level. It won't do 75 HP.
>
> Some airplanes are really best off with this engine, but designing a
> new one around one today is no more sensible than using an OX-5,

I'm kinda wondering how much you know about these great little engines
because they are quite modern and deliver great power for their
vintage, with hydraulic lifters, superb reliability, and plenty of
power output for their size and weight. A-65's never had starters,
except on the A-65-12, which is a very rare Mooney MIte engine, and
nearly impossible to find any more. Not that it hasn't been done but
I have never heard of converting an A-65 to an electric starter.
You'd have to find a rear case for it, and they are rare as hen's
teeth.

Got a photo?

C-85's are low compression too, and will burn mogas. So will C-90's,
O-200's, and O-300's. None of them make more than about 7 atmospheres
of compression, meaning they are 80 octane engines, suitable for
regular mogas and a little additive to keep the valve seats lubed.

Philippe Vessaire

November 15th 05, 08:31 PM

wrote:

> Not*that*it*hasn't*been*done*but
> I have never heard of converting an A-65 to an electric starter.
> You'd have to find a rear case for it, and they are rare as hen's
> teeth.

http://mdlaurent.free.fr

> Got a photo?

--
Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
Philippe Vessaire ҿӬ

Cy Galley

November 16th 05, 01:46 AM

After you get the A-65 starter only rear case, you need the special conical
mag gears made of unotainium.

--
Cy Galley - Aeronca Aviators Club
Newsletter Editor & EAA TC
www.aeronca.org
Actively supporting Aeroncas every day

"Philippe Vessaire" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> Not that it hasn't been done but
>> I have never heard of converting an A-65 to an electric starter.
>> You'd have to find a rear case for it, and they are rare as hen's
>> teeth.
>
> http://mdlaurent.free.fr
>
>> Got a photo?
>
> --
> Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
> Philippe Vessaire ҿӬ
>

Bret Ludwig

November 16th 05, 04:14 AM

Barnyard BOb - wrote:

<<snip>>
> Yada, yada, yada.
> The blind still leading the blind, I see. :)
>
> Please DO get busy doing SOMETHING....
> besides blowing smoke up starry-eyed
> auto-conversion tailpipe droolers.
>
>
> Unka' BOb - 9000 reliable Lycosaurus hours

How many reliable hours on those other lawn tractors around the
barnyard?

Barnyard-where Lycomings belong.

Philippe Vessaire

November 16th 05, 07:28 AM

Cy Galley wrote:

>> http://mdlaurent.free.fr

> After you get the A-65 starter only rear case, you need the special
> conical mag gears made of unotainium.

If you see the photos, you can see automotive parts, cast aluminium alloy
parts and a "non intrusive" modification.

cast parts are bolts on A-65 case

Starter and alternator are bolts on cast parts.

The whole system looks like Lycoming system.

French and UK administration deliver an STC for many planes and all engines
from Continental A65 to O200 and Rolls Royce O240.

By
--
Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
Philippe Vessaire ҿӬ

Charles K. Scott

November 16th 05, 12:49 PM

On 14 Nov 2005 14:50:56 -0800, "Richard Lamb" >
wrote:

>Not to be unkind, Jim, but I believe that if auto engines were
>run at the same continuous high power settings as aircraft
>engines you'd see a lot more of the same kind of failures
>as aircraft engines have had.

Richard, take a read of my auto manufacturers engine test post in the
LS2 thread.

Corky Scott

[email protected]

November 16th 05, 07:06 PM

Very interesting, Philippe, but it makes one wonder if the front of the
65-series case is strong enough to hang all those acessories on the
aluminum parting flanges, with their AN4 fasteners.

Thanks for the link.

Barnyard BOb -

November 22nd 05, 11:38 AM

On 14 Nov 2005 11:21:52 -0800, wrote:

>>By the way, how did your [Soob] installation go? Any stories to share?
>
> It was a major headache.
> Not simple at all.

> Further, the engine had
>to be cruised around 4700 RPM while redline was 5600, so cruise speed
>suffered. The engine life would be low indeed if it was cruised close
>to redline as we do with Lycs (Redline 2700, say, for an O-320, with
>cruise at 2500 or so). Temperatures and fuel burn weren't good at high
>RPMs.

>I maintain full-time six Lycs, From O-235 to O-540, in a
>flight-training operation (just about the worst environment for an
>engine) and we have VERY few problems.
>
> Dan
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

TAKE HEED, MORGANS!

P.S.
Ditto for the rest of your "ilk", too. :-)

Unka' BOb - ove half a century behind Lycoming and auto engines.