Continental E-225-4 question

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

TTE: 2135
SMOH: 1316
STOH: 16

I realize this is an OLD engine model that will probably have to be switched
to an IO-470 or IO-520, but given these numbers and if it has had no really
long periods of idle time, would you be worried beyond reasonable doubt
about getting another 300 to 500 hours out of it? (also assuming
compressions are still good).

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Gary]

Your question is a little short on details so my response will be
general at best. This is a spline shaft engine limiting your choice
of prop to Hartzell models which are either AD ridden or expensive.
There are only 2 accessory pads, requiring the use of a "T-drive" to
gain a third pad and a second "T-drive" to gain a fourth. "T-drives"
are made of pure unobtainium and aren't cheap. The starter is either
going to be an Eclipse E80 or a Delco direct drive. Both have
planetary gear sets and cost plenty to overhaul. Generators in the
35A range are the typical producers of power with the Skytronics 6550
50A alternator being the ONLY modern alternative. These engines run
hot! Compare the E series cylinder fin density to your typical IO-470
angle-valve cylinders and you can see why.
The cylinders WILL NOT MAKE TBO. (flame away) But I know from
personal flight experience and from friends with E185/205 and E225
engines that the compression readings fall well below 60/80 after
about 400-600hrs. Run it lean and hot and you won't make it that
long. The stock carb is a PS-5C Bendix pressure carb, essentially a
throttle-body fuel injection. These require 10-15psi fuel pressure
and must have a vapor/fuel return to the tank. This complicates fuel
tank switching and eats up one of the accessory pads for the fuel
pump. Engine mounts for the -4 aren't like any other more modern
Continental large bore engines. A swap out to an IO470/IO520 will
undoubtedly require a new engine mount.

Good points? Light weight, smooth running.

For an original design airplane or homebuilt I would not recommend
using one of these engines. When my cache of support parts are
consumed or my Hartzell prop requires replacement I will be swapping
my E series engine out for something more modern.

Good luck,
Gary Plewa AP/IA

On May 30, 6:05 pm, "Jim Carter" > wrote:
> TTE: 2135
> SMOH: 1316
> STOH: 16
>
> I realize this is an OLD engine model that will probably have to be switched
> to an IO-470 or IO-520, but given these numbers and if it has had no really
> long periods of idle time, would you be worried beyond reasonable doubt
> about getting another 300 to 500 hours out of it? (also assuming
> compressions are still good).
>
> --
> Jim Carter
> Rogers, Arkansas

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Gary,

The prop has been replaced with a Hartzell HCAZMV20-4A1 already, which
should eliminate AD 97-18-02. I should have included that in my original
post. Other than that, I surmise from your post that...

1) shortage of accessory drives may be a problem,
2) the starter will be expensive to repair,
3) the generator may be insufficient if I need more current draw than 35
Amps,
4) it will need to be topped in another 400 hours or so (but then it will
probably be run out also won't it? 1800 SMOH)
5) low power, rich of peak will be best for longer term operation.

This is currently in an aircraft that doesn't have too much else at risk, so
the engine seems to be my biggest concern right now. Vref is showing $26,000
for a major on an IO-470 so I'm taking that into account.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Your question is a little short on details so my response will be
> general at best. This is a spline shaft engine limiting your choice
> of prop to Hartzell models which are either AD ridden or expensive.
> There are only 2 accessory pads, requiring the use of a "T-drive" to
> gain a third pad and a second "T-drive" to gain a fourth. "T-drives"
> are made of pure unobtainium and aren't cheap. The starter is either
> going to be an Eclipse E80 or a Delco direct drive. Both have
> planetary gear sets and cost plenty to overhaul. Generators in the
> 35A range are the typical producers of power with the Skytronics 6550
> 50A alternator being the ONLY modern alternative. These engines run
> hot! Compare the E series cylinder fin density to your typical IO-470
> angle-valve cylinders and you can see why.
> The cylinders WILL NOT MAKE TBO. (flame away) But I know from
> personal flight experience and from friends with E185/205 and E225
> engines that the compression readings fall well below 60/80 after
> about 400-600hrs. Run it lean and hot and you won't make it that
> long. The stock carb is a PS-5C Bendix pressure carb, essentially a
> throttle-body fuel injection. These require 10-15psi fuel pressure
> and must have a vapor/fuel return to the tank. This complicates fuel
> tank switching and eats up one of the accessory pads for the fuel
> pump. Engine mounts for the -4 aren't like any other more modern
> Continental large bore engines. A swap out to an IO470/IO520 will
> undoubtedly require a new engine mount.
>
> Good points? Light weight, smooth running.
>
> For an original design airplane or homebuilt I would not recommend
> using one of these engines. When my cache of support parts are
> consumed or my Hartzell prop requires replacement I will be swapping
> my E series engine out for something more modern.
>
> Good luck,
> Gary Plewa AP/IA
>
> On May 30, 6:05 pm, "Jim Carter" > wrote:
>> TTE: 2135
>> SMOH: 1316
>> STOH: 16
>>
>> I realize this is an OLD engine model that will probably have to be
>> switched
>> to an IO-470 or IO-520, but given these numbers and if it has had no
>> really
>> long periods of idle time, would you be worried beyond reasonable doubt
>> about getting another 300 to 500 hours out of it? (also assuming
>> compressions are still good).
>>
>> --
>> Jim Carter
>> Rogers, Arkansas
>

[Gary]

Jim,
You're welcome. Sounds like the biggest hurdle, namely the prop,
has already been taken care of. I'm guessing it is set up for
constant speed with a Hartzell A-1B/C governor. If so you should
already have a tee drive on the LH side in tandem with the fuel pump,
either a Romec RD7790 or a Thompson TF1900. If you have the Thompson
watch out for the drive pin which should be inspected periodically for
wear. When they finally go the engine gets very quiet :^). The
bottom ends on these engines are pretty tough. If you have good oil
pressure (e.g. 40-50psi hot cruise, 10-15psi hot idle) then it should
make TBO and perhaps beyond.

Gary Plewa

On May 30, 7:49 pm, "Jim Carter" > wrote:
> Gary,
>
> The prop has been replaced with a Hartzell HCAZMV20-4A1 already, which
> should eliminate AD 97-18-02. I should have included that in my original
> post. Other than that, I surmise from your post that...
>
> 1) shortage of accessory drives may be a problem,
> 2) the starter will be expensive to repair,
> 3) the generator may be insufficient if I need more current draw than 35
> Amps,
> 4) it will need to be topped in another 400 hours or so (but then it will
> probably be run out also won't it? 1800 SMOH)
> 5) low power, rich of peak will be best for longer term operation.
>
> This is currently in an aircraft that doesn't have too much else at risk, so
> the engine seems to be my biggest concern right now. Vref is showing $26,000
> for a major on an IO-470 so I'm taking that into account.
>
> Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
>
> --
> Jim Carter
> Rogers, Arkansas"Gary" > wrote in message

[Rip]

Gary wrote:
> Jim,
> You're welcome. Sounds like the biggest hurdle, namely the prop,
> has already been taken care of. I'm guessing it is set up for
> constant speed with a Hartzell A-1B/C governor. If so you should
> already have a tee drive on the LH side in tandem with the fuel pump,
> either a Romec RD7790 or a Thompson TF1900. If you have the Thompson
> watch out for the drive pin which should be inspected periodically for
> wear. When they finally go the engine gets very quiet :^). The
> bottom ends on these engines are pretty tough. If you have good oil
> pressure (e.g. 40-50psi hot cruise, 10-15psi hot idle) then it should
> make TBO and perhaps beyond.
>
> Gary Plewa
>
> On May 30, 7:49 pm, "Jim Carter" > wrote:
>
>>Gary,
>>
>> The prop has been replaced with a Hartzell HCAZMV20-4A1 already, which
>>should eliminate AD 97-18-02. I should have included that in my original
>>post. Other than that, I surmise from your post that...
>>
>>1) shortage of accessory drives may be a problem,
>>2) the starter will be expensive to repair,
>>3) the generator may be insufficient if I need more current draw than 35
>>Amps,
>>4) it will need to be topped in another 400 hours or so (but then it will
>>probably be run out also won't it? 1800 SMOH)
>>5) low power, rich of peak will be best for longer term operation.
>>
>>This is currently in an aircraft that doesn't have too much else at risk, so
>>the engine seems to be my biggest concern right now. Vref is showing $26,000
>>for a major on an IO-470 so I'm taking that into account.
>>
>>Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
>>
>>--
>>Jim Carter
>>Rogers, Arkansas"Gary" > wrote in message
>
>
I know Gary. I concur with all he says. Gary, will you be at the Navion
National?

Rip
A&P/IA

[[email protected]]

You guys running these engines are surely aware of the Am Bonanza
Society's Lew Gage articles? They have a wealth of info.

And if you are running one, YOU need to be the expert!!

Bill Hale BPPP instructor


On May 30, 7:21 pm, Gary > wrote:
> Jim,
> You're welcome. Sounds like the biggest hurdle, namely the prop,
> has already been taken care of. I'm guessing it is set up for
> constant speed with a Hartzell A-1B/C governor. If so you should
> already have a tee drive on the LH side in tandem with the fuel pump,
> either a Romec RD7790 or a Thompson TF1900. If you have the Thompson
> watch out for the drive pin which should be inspected periodically for
> wear. When they finally go the engine gets very quiet :^). The
> bottom ends on these engines are pretty tough. If you have good oil
> pressure (e.g. 40-50psi hot cruise, 10-15psi hot idle) then it should
> make TBO and perhaps beyond.
>
> Gary Plewa
>
> On May 30, 7:49 pm, "Jim Carter" > wrote:
>
> > Gary,
>
> > The prop has been replaced with a Hartzell HCAZMV20-4A1 already, which
> > should eliminate AD 97-18-02. I should have included that in my original
> > post. Other than that, I surmise from your post that...
>
> > 1) shortage of accessory drives may be a problem,
> > 2) the starter will be expensive to repair,
> > 3) the generator may be insufficient if I need more current draw than 35
> > Amps,
> > 4) it will need to be topped in another 400 hours or so (but then it will
> > probably be run out also won't it? 1800 SMOH)
> > 5) low power, rich of peak will be best for longer term operation.
>
> > This is currently in an aircraft that doesn't have too much else at risk, so
> > the engine seems to be my biggest concern right now. Vref is showing $26,000
> > for a major on an IO-470 so I'm taking that into account.
>
> > Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
>
> > --
> > Jim Carter
> > Rogers, Arkansas"Gary" > wrote in message

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Gary > wrote:
> Your question is a little short on details so my response will be
> general at best. This is a spline shaft engine limiting your choice
> of prop to Hartzell models which are either AD ridden or expensive.

Well, there is the Beech electric prop as well. However considering that
pitch change bearings are non-existant, I doubt thats any better.
On a Bonanza, the Beech prop with 88 inch blades is considered by many to
give the best performance.

> There are only 2 accessory pads, requiring the use of a "T-drive" to
> gain a third pad and a second "T-drive" to gain a fourth. "T-drives"
> are made of pure unobtainium and aren't cheap.

Not all Hartzels require a T-drive, but you probably want one that does.
The Hartzel 12v20-7E on my Bonanza does not have a T-drive. Its
variable pitch, but not constant speed. A decidedly weird prop. I've
been told that if I ever part the plane out, the Beechcraft Museum
would like my prop. Now doesn't that generate warm fuzzies ;-).

> The starter is either
> going to be an Eclipse E80 or a Delco direct drive. Both have
> planetary gear sets and cost plenty to overhaul.

I've no experiance with the Delco and I've not overhauled my Eclipse
but I've been told that the Eclipse is way bigger than is needed for
the E-225. It is apparently somewhat common on larger radials.
Maybe it won't need to be overhauled very often? Dunno.

> These engines run
> hot! Compare the E series cylinder fin density to your typical IO-470
> angle-valve cylinders and you can see why.

Well, they certainly *can* run hot and mine certainly has gotten hotter
than I like. Dilligent use of an engine monitor and much tinkering with
my baffling has allowed me to usually keep all the temperatures under
380. Note the 'usually' weasel words.

> The cylinders WILL NOT MAKE TBO. (flame away) But I know from
> personal flight experience and from friends with E185/205 and E225
> engines that the compression readings fall well below 60/80 after
> about 400-600hrs. Run it lean and hot and you won't make it that
> long.

I'm comming up on 550 hours and so far I'm ok. Everything above 60,
but maybe not by much. Hmmm, walnut desk top <knock><knock>. For the
past 200 hours have been running it lean of peak. I can get it to
only about 20 LOP. I can get it a smidge more by playing with
the carb heat, but it certainly takes a little fiddling.

> Good points? Light weight, smooth running.

Pretty economical to operate as well. I flight plan for 10 gph
burning mogas. Airport wags have warned me that the mogas will
destroy the rubber in the carb, but I've had no problems there.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID)

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

I had heard that same line about mogas and carburetors but I would think
that would be addressed in the STC. Which brings up another question -
anyone know of a mogas STC for the E225-4 in a Navion? I'm waiting on my
membership info to come back from ANS before I can search their members-only
side.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
>...
>
> Pretty economical to operate as well. I flight plan for 10 gph
> burning mogas. Airport wags have warned me that the mogas will
> destroy the rubber in the carb, but I've had no problems there.
>
> --
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID)
>

[Rip]

Jim Carter wrote:
> I had heard that same line about mogas and carburetors but I would think
> that would be addressed in the STC. Which brings up another question -
> anyone know of a mogas STC for the E225-4 in a Navion? I'm waiting on my
> membership info to come back from ANS before I can search their members-only
> side.
>
Jim, sadly there is no mogas STC for the Navion, with any engine.

Rip

[Ron Natalie]

Rip wrote:

>>
> Jim, sadly there is no mogas STC for the Navion, with any engine.
>
> Rip

Yep, I even talked to Petersen about this (the EAA doesn't touch
6 cyls). All they knew was they had tested it and it had failed
the vapor lock test. They couldn't remember which engine, fuel
system, or model Navion they had used.

[Gary]

Most if not all Mogas today has Methanol in it as a replacement for
the oxygenation agent MTBE. Gas pumps are not typically labled as to
alcohol content. Both Petersen and EAA autogas STC's are not valid
with autofuels containing alcohol. At a recent IA seminar held by the
FAA we were reminded that even with an autogas STC if an airplane is
operated using a fuel containing any alcohol that the airplane would
be considered by them to be "unairworthy". Unairworthy to the FAA
also means uninsured to most aviation underwriters. So you won't have
a problem until you have a problem! Methanol is hydroscopic which
means it holds water. This water will, over time, rust the steel
parts in the fuel system.

Gary Plewa

On May 31, 6:42 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> Rip wrote:
>
> > Jim, sadly there is no mogas STC for the Navion, with any engine.
>
> > Rip
>
> Yep, I even talked to Petersen about this (the EAA doesn't touch
> 6 cyls). All they knew was they had tested it and it had failed
> the vapor lock test. They couldn't remember which engine, fuel
> system, or model Navion they had used.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Thanks - did you notice the thread titled Gasohol? That cites a document and
others have concurred that there are some states now where you can not buy
Methanol free fuel. Back to the 100LL it seems...and think about all those
mogas STCs that have just become invalid.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Most if not all Mogas today has Methanol in it as a replacement for
> the oxygenation agent MTBE. Gas pumps are not typically labled as to
> alcohol content. Both Petersen and EAA autogas STC's are not valid
> with autofuels containing alcohol. At a recent IA seminar held by the
> FAA we were reminded that even with an autogas STC if an airplane is
> operated using a fuel containing any alcohol that the airplane would
> be considered by them to be "unairworthy". Unairworthy to the FAA
> also means uninsured to most aviation underwriters. So you won't have
> a problem until you have a problem! Methanol is hydroscopic which
> means it holds water. This water will, over time, rust the steel
> parts in the fuel system.
>
> Gary Plewa
>
> On May 31, 6:42 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
>> Rip wrote:
>>
>> > Jim, sadly there is no mogas STC for the Navion, with any engine.
>>
>> > Rip
>>
>> Yep, I even talked to Petersen about this (the EAA doesn't touch
>> 6 cyls). All they knew was they had tested it and it had failed
>> the vapor lock test. They couldn't remember which engine, fuel
>> system, or model Navion they had used.
>

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Gary > wrote:
> Most if not all Mogas today has Methanol in it as a replacement for
> the oxygenation agent MTBE. Gas pumps are not typically labled as to
> alcohol content. Both Petersen and EAA autogas STC's are not valid
> with autofuels containing alcohol. At a recent IA seminar held by the
> FAA we were reminded that even with an autogas STC if an airplane is
> operated using a fuel containing any alcohol that the airplane would
> be considered by them to be "unairworthy". Unairworthy to the FAA
> also means uninsured to most aviation underwriters. So you won't have
> a problem until you have a problem! Methanol is hydroscopic which
> means it holds water. This water will, over time, rust the steel
> parts in the fuel system.

I do the water test on every every tank I put in the plane. So far
here in central northern Oregon I can get alcohol-free gas. Don't
know how long it will last, though. Also I will shortly be moving
to Idaho and have no idea what is available there.

So, sadly, I agree that the life of the mogas STC is limited.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID)

[NW_Pilot]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
...
> TTE: 2135
> SMOH: 1316
> STOH: 16
>
> I realize this is an OLD engine model that will probably have to be
> switched to an IO-470 or IO-520, but given these numbers and if it has had
> no really long periods of idle time, would you be worried beyond
> reasonable doubt about getting another 300 to 500 hours out of it? (also
> assuming compressions are still good).
>
> --
> Jim Carter
> Rogers, Arkansas
>

I have some Navion Time with that Engine not a bad engine just keep it cool
and invest in Aeroshell stock!

[Gary]

On May 30, 11:51 pm, Frank Stutzman >
wrote:

> Well, there is the Beech electric prop as well. However considering that
> pitch change bearings are non-existant, I doubt thats any better.
> On a Bonanza, the Beech prop with 88 inch blades is considered by many to
> give the best performance.
>

Good point Frank, but since the original poster said 225-4 which is a
wet-sump and the Bonanza uses the 225-8 dry sump version I didn't
think to mention any Beech props. Actually I believe there is yet
another with composite blades called the Koppers Aeromatic prop, very
rare if any are still airworthy.

380CHT is typical for my Navion above 8000' altitude but I feel better
when CHTs are below 350 and I need to fly in denser air to achieve
that with the cowl flaps closed.

Gary Plewa AP/IA
N4GP

[Gary]

On May 30, 10:16 pm, Rip > wrote:
> I know Gary. I concur with all he says. Gary, will you be at the Navion
> National?
>
> Rip
> A&P/IA

Yes, but only for a few days not the entire week. What about you?

Gary

[Rip]

Gary wrote:
> On May 30, 10:16 pm, Rip > wrote:
>
>>I know Gary. I concur with all he says. Gary, will you be at the Navion
>>National?
>>
>>Rip
>>A&P/IA
>
>
> Yes, but only for a few days not the entire week. What about you?
>
> Gary
>
>
Hopefully all week!
Rip

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
Gary > wrote:

> Most if not all Mogas today has Methanol in it as a replacement for
> the oxygenation agent MTBE. Gas pumps are not typically labled as to
> alcohol content. Both Petersen and EAA autogas STC's are not valid
> with autofuels containing alcohol. At a recent IA seminar held by the
> FAA we were reminded that even with an autogas STC if an airplane is
> operated using a fuel containing any alcohol that the airplane would
> be considered by them to be "unairworthy". Unairworthy to the FAA
> also means uninsured to most aviation underwriters. So you won't have
> a problem until you have a problem! Methanol is hydroscopic which
> means it holds water. This water will, over time, rust the steel
> parts in the fuel system.
>
> Gary Plewa
Gary,

You are confusing methanol with ethanol.

Neither is approved for aviation fuel usage.

Both are hydroscopic -- methanol more than ethanol.

Both have materials incompatibilities.

Both increase fuel consumption and reduce power.

Ethanol is the alcohol of choice (Per Archer-Daniels Midland) for
gasohol. It is also the stuff you drink. Methanol will destroy your eyes.

[Gary]

>
> Gary,
>
> You are confusing methanol with ethanol.
>
> Neither is approved for aviation fuel usage.
>
> Both are hydroscopic -- methanol more than ethanol.
>
> Both have materials incompatibilities.
>
> Both increase fuel consumption and reduce power.
>
> Ethanol is the alcohol of choice (Per Archer-Daniels Midland) for
> gasohol. It is also the stuff you drink. Methanol will destroy your eyes.

Yup, you are absolutely right. After I hit the return key I realized
my mistake. Grain alcohol (i.e. moonshine) is used in Gasoline, hence
the increase in corn prices. Not denatured alcohol (e.g. Methanol).

[Dave Butler]

Gary wrote:

> Yup, you are absolutely right. After I hit the return key I realized
> my mistake. Grain alcohol (i.e. moonshine) is used in Gasoline, hence
> the increase in corn prices. Not denatured alcohol (e.g. Methanol).

Methanol is not the same as denatured alcohol, either. Denatured alcohol
is ethanol that has been intentionally contaminated with methanol.

[Ron Natalie]

NW_Pilot wrote:

> I have some Navion Time with that Engine not a bad engine just keep it cool
> and invest in Aeroshell stock!
>
>
The oil consumption isn't that bad. The bad part is what it does
consume is transfered to the belly...invest in some simple green
stock or the like :-)

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Ron Natalie > wrote:

> The oil consumption isn't that bad. The bad part is what it does
> consume is transfered to the belly...invest in some simple green
> stock or the like :-)

Don't know how it works on the Navion, but on the Bonanza I have to
sometimes wonder if the leaky E-225 wasn't Beech's way of lubricating
the nose gear.

I have heard of people owning an E-225 that was leak free. I've
never seen it, though. The only time I ever saw one not leak oil
was when it didn't have any.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID)