Non certified engines. [Archive]

Stuart Grey

February 1st 06, 07:15 PM

Okay, I don't know diddly; I've just caught the airplane bug. So, I'm
asking...

My buddy went out and spent multi tens of thousands of dollars on an
airplane engine. Lycoming, I think it was. Seems kinda pricy, but I
understand that most of that cost is testing, no iron.

I note that there was a lot of talk in the newsgroup and some books out
on Amazon.com on using non-certified engines.

How wise is that? The FAA really allows that, huh? If I had a noose in a
tree, and called it an experimental airplane, would the FAA let me fly
it? Probably not if the nose was over a populated area, huh? Just wondering.

VW engines are mentioned, I suspect because water cooled engines would
be too heavy for small airplanes, and it would introduce additional
cooling failure modes.

I guess I'm not smart enough to even know what questions to ask. So,
please discuss engines, so I can read the thread.

Is there a FAQ for this newsgroup?

Tater Schuld

February 1st 06, 07:25 PM

"Stuart Grey" > wrote in message
. ..
> Okay, I don't know diddly; I've just caught the airplane bug. So, I'm
> asking...
.......
> I note that there was a lot of talk in the newsgroup and some books out on
> Amazon.com on using non-certified engines.
>
> How wise is that? The FAA really allows that, huh? If I had a noose in a
> tree, and called it an experimental airplane, would the FAA let me fly it?
> Probably not if the nose was over a populated area, huh? Just wondering.

supposedly if you can prove its flight characteristics, and prove that the
materials used wont fail under anticipated stresses, yeah, you could fly it.

go to a big airshow and look at some of the nightmares they gave the OK to
fly. amazing. wings made mostly out of sticks 3/8x3/8? CLOTH wings?

and yes, I think that there are some restrictions on some planes, engines
and otherwise. someone can pipe up that has looked at the rules lately

> VW engines are mentioned, I suspect because water cooled engines would be
> too heavy for small airplanes, and it would introduce additional cooling
> failure modes.

ummm curtis jenny? used a water cooled ford engine.

but there are benefits to air cooled. less parts, less weight, less failure
modes. you have to be a bit fussier with them though.

before there were certified engines for planes, what did you think they
used?

Stuart Grey

February 1st 06, 07:36 PM

Tater Schuld wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Okay, I don't know diddly; I've just caught the airplane bug. So, I'm
>>asking...
>
> ......
>
>>I note that there was a lot of talk in the newsgroup and some books out on
>>Amazon.com on using non-certified engines.
>>
>>How wise is that? The FAA really allows that, huh? If I had a noose in a
>>tree, and called it an experimental airplane, would the FAA let me fly it?
>>Probably not if the nose was over a populated area, huh? Just wondering.
>
>
> supposedly if you can prove its flight characteristics, and prove that the
> materials used wont fail under anticipated stresses, yeah, you could fly it.
>
> go to a big airshow and look at some of the nightmares they gave the OK to
> fly. amazing. wings made mostly out of sticks 3/8x3/8? CLOTH wings?

Cloth wing worked for the Wright Brothers. But then, there wasn't an FAA
there to stop the WBs from homebuilding. :-) I'm half worried about
building something dangerous, and half worried about building something
safe that I can't convince the govmint to let me fly. :-)

> and yes, I think that there are some restrictions on some planes, engines
> and otherwise. someone can pipe up that has looked at the rules lately
>
>
>>VW engines are mentioned, I suspect because water cooled engines would be
>>too heavy for small airplanes, and it would introduce additional cooling
>>failure modes.
>
>
> ummm curtis jenny? used a water cooled ford engine.

So, I shouldn't rule out water cooled engines? Maybe I should look for a
totaled Chevy Geo in the junkyard? Maybe there is a size (horsepower)
break at which water cooled makes more sense than air cooled? I'm asking.

> but there are benefits to air cooled. less parts, less weight, less failure
> modes. you have to be a bit fussier with them though.

The biggest problem seems to be using an automobile crankshaft, which is
designed for pure torque, as the structural member for transmitting the
thrust force to the airplane body.

> before there were certified engines for planes, what did you think they
> used?

Engines that killed people more often than they should have, I suppose.
What's your opinion? Is the cost of a certified engine worth the risk?

Rich S.

February 1st 06, 07:50 PM

>>>How wise is that? The FAA really allows that, huh? If I had a noose in a
>>>tree, and called it an experimental airplane, would the FAA let me fly
>>>it? Probably not if the nose was over a populated area, huh? Just
>>>wondering.
>>
>>
>> supposedly if you can prove its flight characteristics, and prove that
>> the materials used wont fail under anticipated stresses, yeah, you could
>> fly it.

Neither the FAA, the gummint, nor we really care if you build an airplane
out of concrete and power it with a string of firecrackers. Precautions are
taken to limit exposure of innocent parties, however - so you may find
yourself with a test area restricted to the Mojave desert, 20 miles from any
known habitation.

You may, if you wish, kill yourself by attempting to fly anything you like.
Have a ball! :)

Rich "ZPG" S.

Montblack

February 1st 06, 07:59 PM

("Stuart Grey" wrote)
> I guess I'm not smart enough to even know what questions to ask. So,
> please discuss engines, so I can read the thread.
>
> Is there a FAQ for this newsgroup?

R.A.Homebuilt FAQ
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I2212119C
(Same link as below ...wait for it)

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.homebuilt/browse_frm/thread/6491fb1b4663238f/644f86f84d150f9d?hl=en#644f86f84d150f9d>

Engine option for ...CriCri's
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y5312119C
(Same link as below ...wait for it)

Click Engines ...Click on "Classic" engine pic ...Anything above 200 (3W
200iB2TS)

<http://www.3w-modellmotoren.com/english/www_3W_Modellmotoren_com.html?../motoren/index_classic_en.html~main>

Two more options for a ...CriCri:
http://www.rcshowcase.com/html/engines/zdz420B4.html
4 cylinder (2 stroke. Oil/gas)
http://www.rcshowcase.com/images/engines/zdz/zdz420cs.jpg
Pic of engine

http://www.rcshowcase.com/html/engines/rcs400.html
5 cylinder 400 cc FOUR STROKE Radial Gas Engine. 23hp/22 lbs.

Montblack

Stuart Grey

February 1st 06, 08:03 PM

Montblack wrote:
> ("Stuart Grey" wrote)
>
>> I guess I'm not smart enough to even know what questions to ask. So,
>> please discuss engines, so I can read the thread.
>>
>> Is there a FAQ for this newsgroup?
>
>
>
> R.A.Homebuilt FAQ
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?I2212119C
> (Same link as below ...wait for it)
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.homebuilt/browse_frm/thread/6491fb1b4663238f/644f86f84d150f9d?hl=en#644f86f84d150f9d>
>
>
> Engine option for ...CriCri's
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y5312119C
> (Same link as below ...wait for it)
>
> Click Engines ...Click on "Classic" engine pic ...Anything above 200 (3W
> 200iB2TS)
>
> <http://www.3w-modellmotoren.com/english/www_3W_Modellmotoren_com.html?../motoren/index_classic_en.html~main>
>
>
>
> Two more options for a ...CriCri:
> http://www.rcshowcase.com/html/engines/zdz420B4.html
> 4 cylinder (2 stroke. Oil/gas)
> http://www.rcshowcase.com/images/engines/zdz/zdz420cs.jpg
> Pic of engine
>
> http://www.rcshowcase.com/html/engines/rcs400.html
> 5 cylinder 400 cc FOUR STROKE Radial Gas Engine. 23hp/22 lbs.
>
>
> Montblack

Thank you! I've book-marked them all!

Stuart Grey

February 1st 06, 08:05 PM

Montblack

February 1st 06, 08:17 PM

("Rich S." wrote)
> Neither the FAA, the gummint, nor we really care if you build an airplane
> out of concrete and power it with a string of firecrackers.

Test Flights in the Mojave:

Flight #1. Ladyfingers are nice but Black Cats would be better...

Flight #2. Black Cats are good but Cherry bombs would be better...

Flight #3. Cherry bombs are good but M-80's would be better...

Flight #4. M-80's are good but dynamite would be better...

Montblack
How many Black Cats to power that flying brick? Yup, a brick. <g>

Rich S.

February 1st 06, 08:22 PM

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> Test Flights in the Mojave:
>
> Flight #1. Ladyfingers are nice but Black Cats would be better...
>
> Flight #2. Black Cats are good but Cherry bombs would be better...
>
> Flight #3. Cherry bombs are good but M-80's would be better...
>
> Flight #4. M-80's are good but dynamite would be better...

A vivid reminder of the difference between "preignition" and "detonation".
:)

Rich S.

Montblack

February 1st 06, 08:50 PM

("Stuart Grey" wrote)
> You know, I think some of those urls are for toy RC engines?

Toy?

http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html
CriCri jet. The 170 Kg spec given is Gross weight. Empty weight is about
65-75 Kg. The extra 100 Kg (220 lbs) is for pilot + fuel.

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=D-GHWB
7 pics at Airliners.net

http://flight.cz/cricri/english/cri-cri-articles.php
1974 and 1982 articles about the CriCri

http://flight.cz/cricri/english/cri-cri-photos-pictures-secchi.php
Photo Gallery - good selection

http://flight.cz/cricri/english/cri-cri-photos-pictures.php
Photo Gallery - all.

http://www.cricri.co.uk/cricri_history.htm
Another CriCri site

Montblack

Montblack

February 1st 06, 09:44 PM

("Stuart Grey" wrote)
> You know, I think some of those urls are for toy RC engines?

>> Two more options for a ...CriCri:
>> http://www.rcshowcase.com/html/engines/zdz420B4.html
>> 4 cylinder (2 stroke. Oil/gas)

35 HP/19 lbs. Higher revving high output 2 cycle (5500-6000rpm).

>> http://www.rcshowcase.com/html/engines/rcs400.html
>> 5 cylinder 400 cc FOUR STROKE Radial Gas Engine.

23 HP/22 lbs. RCS 400 cc (5 cylinder Radial 4-stroke) does have more torque
(3800-4000rpm) and can swing a much bigger prop than the (35HP) ZDZ 420 cc
(4 cylinder 2-stroke).

This all according to an e-mail I received back from the company. Nice
fellow.

Montblack

Morgans

February 1st 06, 10:09 PM

"Montblack" > wrote
>
> Click Engines ...Click on "Classic" engine pic ...Anything above 200 (3W
> 200iB2TS)
>
> <http://www.3w-modellmotoren.com/english/www_3W_Modellmotoren_com.html?../motoren/index_classic_en.html~main>

Wow! I had not looked at some of the big stuff, lately. The two at the
bottom are rated at 60 HP!

Again, I say, WOW!!!
--
Jim in NC

COLIN LAMB

February 1st 06, 11:09 PM

About 15 years ago, I calculated that included in the price of each new
certified 150 hp engine was about $10,000 for liability insurance. I expect
that price has gone up, but I am just guessing. So, everything else being
equal. you could take that engine and sell it without certification for
substantially less money.

But, is the non-certified engine the same as the certified one? Are you
willing to bet your life on it?

Certified engines fail. They also run out of gas and fly into mountains.
Uncertified engines can be built to higher standards than certified
engines - but they need not be. If you use an uncertified engine, you do
not have the FAA looking over your shoulder to assure the engine is build
strong and safe. So, you are the responsible person.

On the other side of the coin, it costs a lot of money to certify things, so
a certified engine may be using older and heavier technology. In the end,
there is no easy answer. It is a matter of selecting priorities.

Colin

stol

February 2nd 06, 12:28 AM

>
> Certified engines fail. They also run out of gas and fly into mountains.
> Uncertified engines can be built to higher standards than certified
> engines - but they need not be. If you use an uncertified engine, you do
> not have the FAA looking over your shoulder to assure the engine is build
> strong and safe. So, you are the responsible person.
>
> On the other side of the coin, it costs a lot of money to certify things, so
> a certified engine may be using older and heavier technology. In the end,
> there is no easy answer. It is a matter of selecting priorities.
>
> Colin

Ahhhh. The blessing of building an experimental plane in the good ol
USA.....

And of course I fly my water cooled plane almost every day and so far
it hasn't killed me.. I should add no one in their right mind should
install an engine this powerful in a plane that small...

Pics of the beast are on my web site...

www.haaspowerair.com

Ben

Anthony W

February 2nd 06, 12:35 AM

Montblack wrote:
> ("Rich S." wrote)
>
>> Neither the FAA, the gummint, nor we really care if you build an
>> airplane out of concrete and power it with a string of firecrackers.
>
>
>
> Test Flights in the Mojave:
>
> Flight #1. Ladyfingers are nice but Black Cats would be better...
>
> Flight #2. Black Cats are good but Cherry bombs would be better...
>
> Flight #3. Cherry bombs are good but M-80's would be better...
>
> Flight #4. M-80's are good but dynamite would be better...
>
>
> Montblack
> How many Black Cats to power that flying brick? Yup, a brick. <g>

The Orion few (or would have flown) off the shockwave of nukes... ;o)
It was basically a 10 story high bulding shaped like a round nose bullet.

Tony

Stealth Pilot

February 2nd 06, 02:31 PM

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:25:16 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
> wrote:

>
>ummm curtis jenny? used a water cooled ford engine.
>
the jenny used an OX-5 engine surely?

Tater Schuld

February 2nd 06, 05:05 PM

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:25:16 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>ummm curtis jenny? used a water cooled ford engine.
>>
> the jenny used an OX-5 engine surely?

I could be wrong. the only Curtis jenny I saw was in the bell museum at
Niagara Falls being restored. It had a water radiator that looked automotive
with a hole made in it. I *thought* I saw a ford logo on it but I could be
mistaken.

Mike Gaskins

February 2nd 06, 05:23 PM

Quite a few Rotax engines are water cooled, and some of those are
certificated.

FAA rules stipulate that a homebuilt must complete a 40 hours testing
phase before it can be operated as a "normal" airplane. Before you can
even begin that it has to be approved by an FAA inspector who will
confirm that it's airworthy.

So if you can do that, it does't matter if you want an "airplane", car,
motorcycle, lawnmower, or boat engine powering it. If it will fly and
fly safely, then you're good to go.

Personally, I'll be using a Corvair auto conversion in my project when
the time comes.

Michael Gaskins
Stuart Grey wrote:
> Okay, I don't know diddly; I've just caught the airplane bug. So, I'm
> asking...
>
> My buddy went out and spent multi tens of thousands of dollars on an
> airplane engine. Lycoming, I think it was. Seems kinda pricy, but I
> understand that most of that cost is testing, no iron.
>
> I note that there was a lot of talk in the newsgroup and some books out
> on Amazon.com on using non-certified engines.
>
> How wise is that? The FAA really allows that, huh? If I had a noose in a
> tree, and called it an experimental airplane, would the FAA let me fly
> it? Probably not if the nose was over a populated area, huh? Just wondering.
>
> VW engines are mentioned, I suspect because water cooled engines would
> be too heavy for small airplanes, and it would introduce additional
> cooling failure modes.
>
> I guess I'm not smart enough to even know what questions to ask. So,
> please discuss engines, so I can read the thread.
>
> Is there a FAQ for this newsgroup?

Rich S.

February 2nd 06, 06:29 PM

"Mike Gaskins" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> FAA rules stipulate that a homebuilt must complete a 40 hours testing
> phase before it can be operated as a "normal" airplane. Before you can
> even begin that it has to be approved by an FAA inspector who will
> confirm that it's airworthy.

This is not true. The FAA does not certify airworthiness. The manufacturer
(you) does that. The FAA only checks to see if its requirements are met in
regards to registration, placarding, N numbers, etc.

Rich S.

Gig 601XL Builder

February 2nd 06, 07:38 PM

"Rich S." > wrote in message
. ..
> "Mike Gaskins" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> FAA rules stipulate that a homebuilt must complete a 40 hours testing
>> phase before it can be operated as a "normal" airplane. Before you can
>> even begin that it has to be approved by an FAA inspector who will
>> confirm that it's airworthy.
>
> This is not true. The FAA does not certify airworthiness. The manufacturer
> (you) does that. The FAA only checks to see if its requirements are met in
> regards to registration, placarding, N numbers, etc.
>
> Rich S.
>

If that is the case then why do they want be to have all of the access ports
open on the aircraft? I ask this because I've not yet been through an
inspection.

Rich S.

February 2nd 06, 09:40 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> If that is the case then why do they want be to have all of the access
> ports open on the aircraft? I ask this because I've not yet been through
> an inspection.

This dates back to the days when they had the budget to allow time for a
proper inspection - and they had the knowledgeable personnel who cared
enough to make one. It is a real shame that there isn't that interaction
between FAA people and the users of the system - the citizens who pay the
taxes. I knew inspectors forty years ago who really cared about such things.

In today's world, here's what happens. The inspector shows up and spends
about five minutes arranging the papers on his clipboard and then carefully
dons his hermetically-sealed FAA ID card on a chain about his neck. He
introduces himself and asks for your paperwork. The next half-hour is spent
verifying that you have crossed your "T"'s and dotted your "I"'s. He will
look at your registrations numbers, measuring their size and judging their
color. He will inspect the data plate (if any) on your engine. He will check
your placards in the cockpit.

Then he fills out your certificate. You ask him if he would like to look in
the inspection hole in your wing, knowing full well the aileron cables are
not safety wired (you're going to do that at the airport during final
assembly). He squats down and looks up under your wing, the inspection hole
a "Black Hole" in the bright sunlight. He says, "Looks good!" and gives you
a beaming smile. He hands you your certificate. He doesn't even know what
safety wire is.

This is the real world of federal bureaucracy. It's not pretty. Perhaps a
DAR inspection is different.

Rich

Rich S.

February 2nd 06, 09:44 PM

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If that is the case then why do they want be to have all of the access
>> ports open on the aircraft? I ask this because I've not yet been through
>> an inspection.

I forgot - if you have applied for a repairman certificate, he will check
your builder's log and photos for that purpose.

Rich S.

John Ammeter

February 2nd 06, 10:30 PM

Regarding the data plate on your homebuilt...

When I built my RV-6 the requirement for location of the data plate was
that it be on the empennage and "visible from the ground". Well, I
didn't really want a dataplate detracting from my beautiful paint job so
I put the data plate on the bottom of the empennage.

I had a real honest to goodness FAA inspector check my airplane out for
its certificate and he couldn't find my dataplate on first go around...
so, he asked where it was... I said on the bottom of the empennage and
you'll have to lay on the ground to read it. He went to his book of
regs and found the pertinent paragraph for location of the data plate...
found that I was in compliance with the wording of the regs.

A couple years later, I noticed that the wording for location of the
data plate now read, "visible to a person standing on the ground".

John

Rich S. wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If that is the case then why do they want be to have all of the access
>>ports open on the aircraft? I ask this because I've not yet been through
>>an inspection.
>
>
> This dates back to the days when they had the budget to allow time for a
> proper inspection - and they had the knowledgeable personnel who cared
> enough to make one. It is a real shame that there isn't that interaction
> between FAA people and the users of the system - the citizens who pay the
> taxes. I knew inspectors forty years ago who really cared about such things.
>
> In today's world, here's what happens. The inspector shows up and spends
> about five minutes arranging the papers on his clipboard and then carefully
> dons his hermetically-sealed FAA ID card on a chain about his neck. He
> introduces himself and asks for your paperwork. The next half-hour is spent
> verifying that you have crossed your "T"'s and dotted your "I"'s. He will
> look at your registrations numbers, measuring their size and judging their
> color. He will inspect the data plate (if any) on your engine. He will check
> your placards in the cockpit.
>
> Then he fills out your certificate. You ask him if he would like to look in
> the inspection hole in your wing, knowing full well the aileron cables are
> not safety wired (you're going to do that at the airport during final
> assembly). He squats down and looks up under your wing, the inspection hole
> a "Black Hole" in the bright sunlight. He says, "Looks good!" and gives you
> a beaming smile. He hands you your certificate. He doesn't even know what
> safety wire is.
>
> This is the real world of federal bureaucracy. It's not pretty. Perhaps a
> DAR inspection is different.
>
> Rich
>
>

Kyle Boatright

February 3rd 06, 12:08 AM

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...

<<<snip>>>

>
> This is the real world of federal bureaucracy. It's not pretty. Perhaps a
> DAR inspection is different.
>
> Rich

Not in my experience. Other than the fact that hiring the DAR cost $300....

KB

Kyle Boatright

February 3rd 06, 01:10 AM

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <<<snip>>>
>
>>
>> This is the real world of federal bureaucracy. It's not pretty. Perhaps a
>> DAR inspection is different.
>>
>> Rich
>
> Not in my experience. Other than the fact that hiring the DAR cost
> $300....
>
> KB

Oh yeah, that same $300 DAR was about to issue my airplane a 25 hour fly-off
period. Being the honest guy I am, I pointed out that the engine was
assembled in a non-certified shop (my garage), had a non-certified ignition
system, and was attached to a non-certified wood prop. Given those issues,
I told him I thought a 40 hour fly-off was mandated and was fine by me...

Nice guy, but I shooed him away and had trusted airplane buddies do a *real*
final inspection.

KB

Rich S.

February 3rd 06, 01:25 AM

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nice guy, but I shooed him away and had trusted airplane buddies do a
> *real* final inspection.

I think my FAA inspector must've retired and went into business as a DAR.

Rich S.

Stuart Grey

February 3rd 06, 08:14 PM

Mike Gaskins wrote:
> Quite a few Rotax engines are water cooled, and some of those are
> certificated.
>
> FAA rules stipulate that a homebuilt must complete a 40 hours testing
> phase before it can be operated as a "normal" airplane. Before you can
> even begin that it has to be approved by an FAA inspector who will
> confirm that it's airworthy.
>
> So if you can do that, it does't matter if you want an "airplane", car,
> motorcycle, lawnmower, or boat engine powering it. If it will fly and
> fly safely, then you're good to go.
>
> Personally, I'll be using a Corvair auto conversion in my project when
> the time comes.

Corvair?! Wouldn't that make the engine at least 40 years old? Do you
trust that?

How did you even find such an engine?

> Michael Gaskins
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>>Okay, I don't know diddly; I've just caught the airplane bug. So, I'm
>>asking...
>>
>>My buddy went out and spent multi tens of thousands of dollars on an
>>airplane engine. Lycoming, I think it was. Seems kinda pricy, but I
>>understand that most of that cost is testing, no iron.
>>
>>I note that there was a lot of talk in the newsgroup and some books out
>>on Amazon.com on using non-certified engines.
>>
>>How wise is that? The FAA really allows that, huh? If I had a noose in a
>>tree, and called it an experimental airplane, would the FAA let me fly
>>it? Probably not if the nose was over a populated area, huh? Just wondering.
>>
>>VW engines are mentioned, I suspect because water cooled engines would
>>be too heavy for small airplanes, and it would introduce additional
>>cooling failure modes.
>>
>>I guess I'm not smart enough to even know what questions to ask. So,
>>please discuss engines, so I can read the thread.
>>
>>Is there a FAQ for this newsgroup?
>
>

Lou

February 3rd 06, 08:36 PM

So what if it's 40 years old. What do you think an engine out of
a 1960's cessna 150 will be? If it's rebuilt properly it should be a
good engine.

Mike Gaskins

February 3rd 06, 09:49 PM

There are plenty of certified engines flying around that are much older
than that (and I would trust those too). Do you think Contintental is
still making A-65's to throw into the Cubs and Champs that so many
people still fly? Given that a Corvair conversion done according to
established plans (by William Wynne) will be completely rebuilt and
with many new/specialized parts, it's largely a new engine. There are
a LOT of them flying in experimentals these days. There have been a
few issues with the crankshafts (no major accidents have resulted from
this), but with nitriding the shaft it should be fine.

As to finding one, as is often pointed out, GM made more (several times
more) Corvair engines back in the 60's than Lycoming has made of any
engine during it's whole history. Finding them is quite easy. The
usually sell for $300 or less. You'll have to dump another $3k or so
into it to get it airworthy though.

Gig 601XL Builder

February 3rd 06, 10:21 PM

"Stuart Grey" > wrote in message
...

>
> Corvair?! Wouldn't that make the engine at least 40 years old? Do you
> trust that?

www.flycorvair.com

Stuart Grey

February 3rd 06, 10:48 PM

Mike Gaskins wrote:
> There are plenty of certified engines flying around that are much older
> than that (and I would trust those too). Do you think Contintental is
> still making A-65's to throw into the Cubs and Champs that so many
> people still fly? Given that a Corvair conversion done according to
> established plans (by William Wynne) will be completely rebuilt and
> with many new/specialized parts, it's largely a new engine. There are
> a LOT of them flying in experimentals these days. There have been a
> few issues with the crankshafts (no major accidents have resulted from
> this), but with nitriding the shaft it should be fine.
>
> As to finding one, as is often pointed out, GM made more (several times
> more) Corvair engines back in the 60's than Lycoming has made of any
> engine during it's whole history. Finding them is quite easy. The
> usually sell for $300 or less. You'll have to dump another $3k or so
> into it to get it airworthy though.

Is there a FAQ on Corvair engines? How do I go about finding out more
information, like were to look for one, the Wynne conversion, and what
are the specs of the finished product?

Stuart Grey

February 3rd 06, 10:50 PM

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Corvair?! Wouldn't that make the engine at least 40 years old? Do you
>>trust that?
>
>
>
> www.flycorvair.com

Hey, that works! Thank you.

Highflyer

February 5th 06, 03:45 AM

"Tater Schuld" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:25:16 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>ummm curtis jenny? used a water cooled ford engine.
>>>
>> the jenny used an OX-5 engine surely?
>
> I could be wrong. the only Curtis jenny I saw was in the bell museum at
> Niagara Falls being restored. It had a water radiator that looked
> automotive with a hole made in it. I *thought* I saw a ford logo on it but
> I could be mistaken.
>
You were mistaken. Yes, it has a radiator with a tank on the top. I guess
that looks "automotive." Most aircraft used water cooled engines until
they got enough cooling fins on the cylinders and the airplanes got fast
enough to make the air cooling work reasonably well, in the 1920's. Then
they quickly switched over to air cooling, with a few exceptions that hung
on through WWII, such as the Merlin used in the P-51 and the Allison used in
the P-38 and P-40.

The WWI era Hall Scott was an all aluminum water cooled engine with four
valves per cylinder for better breathing. Unfortunately they were not very
reliable and the airplane manufacturers preferred the inexpensive, readily
available Curtiss OX-5 which put out 90 solid horsepower at only 450 pounds
and there were thousands of them available after the war because Curtiss put
them into every JN-2 "Jenny" ever built. Most of the low cost biplanes
built prior to the stockmarket crash of 1929 used the OX-5 engine because of
price and availability. The new radial engines that were coming out in the
twenties, such as the lovely Wright that Lindbergh used to fly to France,
cost more than the entire OX-5 powered Waco 10. :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

Highflyer

February 5th 06, 03:52 AM

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Nice guy, but I shooed him away and had trusted airplane buddies do a
>> *real* final inspection.
>
> I think my FAA inspector must've retired and went into business as a DAR.
>
> Rich S.
>

The DAR program was established by the FAA to allow a simple means for
retired FAA PMI's to supplement their retirement checks without having to do
any work. :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

Highflyer

February 5th 06, 03:58 AM

"Stuart Grey" > wrote in message
...
> >Mike Gaskins wrote:
>> Personally, I'll be using a Corvair auto conversion in my project when
>> the time comes.
>
> Stuart Grey wrote:
> Corvair?! Wouldn't that make the engine at least 40 years old? Do you
> trust that?
>
> How did you even find such an engine?
>

My airplane, which I fly regularly, and which many of the regulars here have
ridden in at the Pinckneyville RAH Flyin, has a CERTIFIED engine that ceased
production in 1943. I bought a new magneto coil and it came sealed into a
tin can like a can of sardines. The bottom of the can was labeled "Packed
in 1942." It runs great. Purrs like a kitten.

I trust that a lot more than a trust some of these new computer controlled
car engines! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

PS: The 10th annual Pinckneyville RAH Flyin is coming up May 19, 20, and
21. Let Mary know if you are coming at so that she knows
how many steaks to buy. Otherwise you may windup with nothing to eat! :-)

Morgans

February 5th 06, 04:36 AM

"Highflyer" > wrote

> The new radial engines that were coming out in the twenties, such as the
> lovely Wright that Lindbergh used to fly to France, cost more than the
> entire OX-5 powered Waco 10. :-)
\
Thanks for pointing that jem out. I don't think I have ever seen or heard
of the Waco 10 before.
--
Jim in NC

Tater Schuld

February 5th 06, 03:59 PM

"Highflyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tater Schuld" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:25:16 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>ummm curtis jenny? used a water cooled ford engine.
>>>>
>>> the jenny used an OX-5 engine surely?
>>
>> I could be wrong. the only Curtis jenny I saw was in the bell museum at
> You were mistaken. Yes, it has a radiator with a tank on the top. I
> guess
> available Curtiss OX-5 which put out 90 solid horsepower at only 450
> pounds and there were thousands of them available after the war because
> Curtiss put

ok, I haven't been looking too hard, but how does that compare to some of
the water cooled automotive engines of today?

Tater Schuld

February 5th 06, 04:08 PM

"Highflyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stuart Grey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >Mike Gaskins wrote:
>>> Personally, I'll be using a Corvair auto conversion in my project when
>>> the time comes.
>>
>> Stuart Grey wrote:
>> Corvair?! Wouldn't that make the engine at least 40 years old? Do you
>> trust that?
>>
>
> My airplane, which I fly regularly, and which many of the regulars here
> have ridden in at the Pinckneyville RAH Flyin, has a CERTIFIED engine that
> ceased production in 1943. I bought a new magneto coil and it came
> sealed into a tin can like a can of sardines. The bottom of the can was
> labeled "Packed in 1942." It runs great. Purrs like a kitten.
>
> I trust that a lot more than a trust some of these new computer controlled
> car engines! :-)
>
why?

as far as automotive engines go, they tend to run as reliably, and with less
attention. with oil changes at every 66 hours and inspection at 1700 hours
(assuming an average 45mph), they seem to match aircraft.

this is one reason I am leery about using snowmobile engines, as every
snowmobile I've come across was hard to start, seemed barely able to run,
and was fussy about temperature and humidity values.

(my experience with snowmobiles is very limited, and wrong. I know.)

but I get in my 01 car, turn the key and go. even my 86 truck I can do this.

[email protected]

February 7th 06, 02:49 PM

>as far as automotive engines go, they tend to run as reliably, and with less
>attention. with oil changes at every 66 hours and inspection at 1700 hours
>(assuming an average 45mph), they seem to match aircraft.

But they aren't running at the much higher constant power
settings that aircraft engines do. For instance, a Lycoming O-320 is
redlined at 2700 RPM, and can cruise safely at any RPM up to that. Try
running a Subaru at its 5600 RPM redline for 500 hours and see how long
it lasts. The auto engine is redlined so high to get the HP out of its
shorter stroke and to allow good accelleration, but in cruise the car
needs only a little power. The max power is only short bursts.
There have been a few auto conversions run at max power for long
periods as part of their testing, and the results have been good with
some. Cooling is a usual issue, since the car's radiator isn't usually
designed to dissipate that sort of heat, and better systems have to be
used in the airplane. I ran a Soob 2200 at extended full power in
flight, and even with the full-sized rad and a lot of fancy ducting
there still were temperature issues.

>this is one reason I am leery about using snowmobile engines, as every
>snowmobile I've come across was hard to start, seemed barely able to run,
>and was fussy about temperature and humidity values.

Two-strokes are ornery like that, and they put out a lot of power
for their weight, which produces a lot of waste heat that has to be
managed well or they'll seize up.

>(my experience with snowmobiles is very limited, and wrong. I know.)

>but I get in my 01 car, turn the key and go. even my 86 truck I can do this.

That's because it has about 50 pounds of computers and
injector solenoids and sensors and so on, and in an airplane that
weight is unwelcome and those systems add more failure points. When it
quits, it quits without any warning, unlike most ancient aircraft
engine systems. Further, the homebuilder prides himself on his ability
to fix anything on his airplane, and those electronic systems are
unfriendly to the average homebuilder.
There are good signs that aircraft engines are adopting the new
technology in a more weight-concious and reliable manner, though. We
call it FADEC.

Dan

Tater Schuld

February 7th 06, 04:44 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> >as far as automotive engines go, they tend to run as reliably, and with
> >less
>>attention. with oil changes at every 66 hours and inspection at 1700 hours
>>(assuming an average 45mph), they seem to match aircraft.
>
> But they aren't running at the much higher constant power
> settings that aircraft engines do.

I understand that, but is it because the aircraft engines are under-rated
due to their designed purpose?

and If one designes the pro and such to run at less than redline, the issues
you commented about woudl disapear. the issue of weight vs horsepower rear
their heads, but it isn't the issue I was looking at.

the issue i was looking at was lowest price point versus power, not price
point per horsepower per pound.

example, I get an engine that weights 400 pounds and cranks 150 hp at a
consistent RPM for $100, or I can get a 200 pound engine that does the same
thing for $5000. or maybe a 300 pound engine that does it for $1000. which
woudl be best? the 200 pound one. which would work? depends on the design of
the plane.

> There have been a few auto conversions run at max power for long
> periods as part of their testing, and the results have been good with
> some. Cooling is a usual issue, since the car's radiator isn't usually
> designed to dissipate that sort of heat

so use an oversize radiator, not the stock one used by the car with that
engine. more fiddling but not impossible.

>>but I get in my 01 car, turn the key and go. even my 86 truck I can do
>>this.
>
> That's because it has about 50 pounds of computers and
> injector solenoids and sensors and so on, and in an airplane that
> weight is unwelcome and those systems add more failure points.

but if it works, wouldnt it justify it's extra weight? and how much of that
extra weight can be cut of? cases, cables shrouds, and such are designed
with reliability in mind, not weight consiousness.

any my 86 truck uses maybe 25 pounds of electronics gear, the oil pressure
sensor dont work, and doesnt use injectors. If it was a 4 cyl instead of a 6
i'd use it for an example. those ford inline six's are nearlying
indestructable and never seem to fail. maybe on the 2nd plane i design. too
bad they are going the way of the VW engine.

> When it
> quits, it quits without any warning, unlike most ancient aircraft
> engine systems.

and those systems dont have EGT or CHT senors, not do their inspections have
you number the spark plugs as they are removed to evaluate each cylinder.
nor do Autos let you control fuel mixture on the fly.

take an auto engine, add some aircraft engine technology and you'd get teh
same reliability.

> Further, the homebuilder prides himself on his ability
> to fix anything on his airplane, and those electronic systems are
> unfriendly to the average homebuilder.

yeah, I'd agree, but the black boxes that cars use are SOOOOO much easier to
replace, wallet wise.

[email protected]

February 7th 06, 07:28 PM

Tater Schuld wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > >as far as automotive engines go, they tend to run as reliably, and with
> > >less
> >>attention. with oil changes at every 66 hours and inspection at 1700 hours
> >>(assuming an average 45mph), they seem to match aircraft.
> >
> > But they aren't running at the much higher constant power
> > settings that aircraft engines do.
>
> I understand that, but is it because the aircraft engines are under-rated
> due to their designed purpose?
>
> and If one designes the pro and such to run at less than redline, the issues
> you commented about woudl disapear. the issue of weight vs horsepower rear
> their heads, but it isn't the issue I was looking at.
>
> the issue i was looking at was lowest price point versus power, not price
> point per horsepower per pound.
>
> example, I get an engine that weights 400 pounds and cranks 150 hp at a
> consistent RPM for $100, or I can get a 200 pound engine that does the same
> thing for $5000. or maybe a 300 pound engine that does it for $1000. which
> woudl be best? the 200 pound one. which would work? depends on the design of
> the plane.
>
> > There have been a few auto conversions run at max power for long
> > periods as part of their testing, and the results have been good with
> > some. Cooling is a usual issue, since the car's radiator isn't usually
> > designed to dissipate that sort of heat
>
> so use an oversize radiator, not the stock one used by the car with that
> engine. more fiddling but not impossible.
>
> >>but I get in my 01 car, turn the key and go. even my 86 truck I can do
> >>this.
> >
> > That's because it has about 50 pounds of computers and
> > injector solenoids and sensors and so on, and in an airplane that
> > weight is unwelcome and those systems add more failure points.
>
> but if it works, wouldnt it justify it's extra weight? and how much of that
> extra weight can be cut of? cases, cables shrouds, and such are designed
> with reliability in mind, not weight consiousness.
>
> any my 86 truck uses maybe 25 pounds of electronics gear, the oil pressure
> sensor dont work, and doesnt use injectors. If it was a 4 cyl instead of a 6
> i'd use it for an example. those ford inline six's are nearlying
> indestructable and never seem to fail. maybe on the 2nd plane i design. too
> bad they are going the way of the VW engine.
>
> > When it
> > quits, it quits without any warning, unlike most ancient aircraft
> > engine systems.
>
> and those systems dont have EGT or CHT senors, not do their inspections have
> you number the spark plugs as they are removed to evaluate each cylinder.
> nor do Autos let you control fuel mixture on the fly.
>
> take an auto engine, add some aircraft engine technology and you'd get teh
> same reliability.
>
> > Further, the homebuilder prides himself on his ability
> > to fix anything on his airplane, and those electronic systems are
> > unfriendly to the average homebuilder.
>
> yeah, I'd agree, but the black boxes that cars use are SOOOOO much easier to
> replace, wallet wise.

You need to Google this group re auto engine conversions. All of
your arguments have ben discussed ad nauseum here for years, and many
people have done conversions of just about every auto engine imaginable
and have encountered many more problems than they ever anticipated.
Some spend many thousands of dollars on these projects, only to give up
in disgust and buy a Lycoming. Might as well learn from the
efforts/mistakes/research of others. If you just want to tinker,
converting's a good way to spend lots of tinker time.
A Ford 300 six is about 450-500 lbs and produces about 130 HP
at 3400 RPM. 3400 is too fast for a prop so it either has to run slower
and sacrifice power, which further increases the already-poor
weight-to-horsepower ratio, or install a redrive, which adds weight and
costs some power. I have a 300 that I put in my antique truck, and
believe me, it's heavy. A Chev 350 is a better machine to convert, but
will still be awfully heavy. Exceptionally heavy engines need
airtframes designed to handle them while keeping the CG where it needs
to be.
Big radiators need room and intelligent baffling to route the
air properly without creating a lot of drag, and depending on the rad's
position and location, coolant vapor control and removal becomes
difficult.

Dan