RV6A down in Seattle area

[Ron Webb]

I just found some more info on the RV6A that went down in Stanwood, Wa (30
mi north of seattle).

The aircraft registration
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=154RM&cmndfind.x=15&cmndfind.y=12

Says the engine was an O-320 series. She told her husband just before the
crash she was losing power.
Another victim of a Lycosaur.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Ron Webb wrote:
> I just found some more info on the RV6A that went down in Stanwood, Wa (30
> mi north of seattle).
>
> The aircraft registration
> http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=154RM&cmndfind.x=15&cmndfind.y=12
>
> Says the engine was an O-320 series. She told her husband just before the
> crash she was losing power.
> Another victim of a Lycosaur.
>
>

Do you really want to argue that Lyc's safety record is worse than the
vast majority of other piston engines used in aircraft?

I personally think you using this accident, with absolutely nothing to
support it was an engine failure, to back-up whatever you have against
Lyco engines is kind of tacky.

Building my 601XL w/Corvair conversion.

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder schreef:
> Ron Webb wrote:
>> I just found some more info on the RV6A that went down in Stanwood, Wa
>> (30 mi north of seattle).
>>
>> The aircraft registration
>> http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=154RM&cmndfind.x=15&cmndfind.y=12
>>
>>
>> Says the engine was an O-320 series. She told her husband just before
>> the crash she was losing power.
>> Another victim of a Lycosaur.
>>
>
> Do you really want to argue that Lyc's safety record is worse than the
> vast majority of other piston engines used in aircraft?
>
> I personally think you using this accident, with absolutely nothing to
> support it was an engine failure, to back-up whatever you have against
> Lyco engines is kind of tacky.

Hm. Was thinking much the same, even if I like neither
the medieval US engines nor me-too usenet replies.

[Ron Webb]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Webb wrote:
>> I just found some more info on the RV6A that went down in Stanwood, Wa
>> (30 mi north of seattle).
>>
>> The aircraft registration
>> http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=154RM&cmndfind.x=15&cmndfind.y=12
>>
>> Says the engine was an O-320 series. She told her husband just before the
>> crash she was losing power.
>> Another victim of a Lycosaur.
>
> Do you really want to argue that Lyc's safety record is worse than the
> vast majority of other piston engines used in aircraft?
>
> I personally think you using this accident, with absolutely nothing to
> support it was an engine failure, to back-up whatever you have against
> Lyco engines is kind of tacky.
>
> Building my 601XL w/Corvair conversion.



No support that it was an engine failure? How about the pilot's own words, a
few seconds before she died? She SAID she was losing power! OK it could well
have been something stupid like carb ice. I'd list that as an engine
failure. Doesn't happen in water cooled engines that heat the intake
manifold with coolant.

As for the safety record of Lyc vs others, I have to grant that I'd have to
pick my examples pretty carefully to find an uncertificated homebuilt with a
better record. Such examples exist. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/ for one.

But I think you'd have to admit that if a major manufacturer (Toyota or GM
maybe) decided to do it, a properly engineered aircraft engine could be
developed that would be so utterly reliable that this kind of thing would
not happen.

My point is that the factors that have combined to make sure this
hypothetical engine does not exist (legal and regulatory) have cost many
lives over the past 40 years in the name of safety.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Webb" > wrote
>
> But I think you'd have to admit that if a major manufacturer (Toyota or GM
> maybe) decided to do it, a properly engineered aircraft engine could be
> developed that would be so utterly reliable that this kind of thing would
> not happen.

It could be that the pilot neglected to make sure there was enough fuel in
the tank, or that a fuel valve was in the correct position.

Wait for the report before you pop off. Good advice for everyone to follow.
--
Jim in NC

[BobR]

On Feb 18, 3:11*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Ron Webb" > wrote
>
>
>
> > But I think you'd have to admit that if a major manufacturer (Toyota or GM
> > maybe) decided to do it, a properly engineered aircraft engine could be
> > developed that would be so utterly reliable that this kind of thing would
> > not happen.
>
> *It could be that the pilot neglected to make sure there was enough fuel in
> the tank, or that a fuel valve was in the correct position.
>
> Wait for the report before you pop off. *Good advice for everyone to follow.
> --
> Jim in NC

Agreed, since the number of potiential causes for "loss of power" are
lengthy and few are directly related to the engine manufacturer.

Lets offer condolences to the family instead of speculation on the
causes.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:38:29 -0900, "Ron Webb" > wrote:

> As for the safety record of Lyc vs others, I have to grant that I'd have to
> pick my examples pretty carefully to find an uncertificated homebuilt with a
> better record. Such examples exist. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/ for one.

I did a study of homebuilt accidents over a ~8 year period. Didn't have fleet
sizes for Lycosaur and Auto conversions, but instead looked at how often the
engine was the *cause* of the accident.

Out of 744 homebuilt accidents involving Lycoming, Continental, Franklin,
Jacobs, or Pratt and Whitney engines, 104 were due to some form of engine
failure.

Out of 219 homebuilt accidents in the same period involving auto-engine
conversions, 63 were due to engine failure.

Lycosaur: 14%
Auto Engines: 28%.

Offhand, I'd say the Lycosaurs are safer.

For the purpose of my analysis, I counted the following as "due to engine
failure":

Internal failures (pistons, cranks, etc.)
Fuel System on the engine side of the firewall
Ignition systems
Drive systems (e.g., PSRUs)
Oil System
Carburetor or fuel injector failure
Cooling system failure
Undetermined loss of power


Ron Wanttaja

[Scott[_1_]]

Could have been fuel starvation. If so, I can't think of any engine
that would have been more reliable than the Lycoming...

Scott


Ron Webb wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ron Webb wrote:
>>
>>>I just found some more info on the RV6A that went down in Stanwood, Wa
>>>(30 mi north of seattle).
>>>
>>>The aircraft registration
>>>http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=154RM&cmndfind.x=15&cmndfind.y=12
>>>
>>>Says the engine was an O-320 series. She told her husband just before the
>>>crash she was losing power.
>>>Another victim of a Lycosaur.
>>
>>Do you really want to argue that Lyc's safety record is worse than the
>>vast majority of other piston engines used in aircraft?
>>
>>I personally think you using this accident, with absolutely nothing to
>>support it was an engine failure, to back-up whatever you have against
>>Lyco engines is kind of tacky.
>>
>>Building my 601XL w/Corvair conversion.
>
>
>
>
> No support that it was an engine failure? How about the pilot's own words, a
> few seconds before she died? She SAID she was losing power! OK it could well
> have been something stupid like carb ice. I'd list that as an engine
> failure. Doesn't happen in water cooled engines that heat the intake
> manifold with coolant.
>
> As for the safety record of Lyc vs others, I have to grant that I'd have to
> pick my examples pretty carefully to find an uncertificated homebuilt with a
> better record. Such examples exist. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/ for one.
>
> But I think you'd have to admit that if a major manufacturer (Toyota or GM
> maybe) decided to do it, a properly engineered aircraft engine could be
> developed that would be so utterly reliable that this kind of thing would
> not happen.
>
> My point is that the factors that have combined to make sure this
> hypothetical engine does not exist (legal and regulatory) have cost many
> lives over the past 40 years in the name of safety.
>
>

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Ron Webb wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ron Webb wrote:
>>> I just found some more info on the RV6A that went down in Stanwood, Wa
>>> (30 mi north of seattle).
>>>
>>> The aircraft registration
>>> http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=154RM&cmndfind.x=15&cmndfind.y=12
>>>
>>> Says the engine was an O-320 series. She told her husband just before the
>>> crash she was losing power.
>>> Another victim of a Lycosaur.
>> Do you really want to argue that Lyc's safety record is worse than the
>> vast majority of other piston engines used in aircraft?
>>
>> I personally think you using this accident, with absolutely nothing to
>> support it was an engine failure, to back-up whatever you have against
>> Lyco engines is kind of tacky.
>>
>> Building my 601XL w/Corvair conversion.
>
>
>
> No support that it was an engine failure? How about the pilot's own words, a
> few seconds before she died? She SAID she was losing power! OK it could well
> have been something stupid like carb ice. I'd list that as an engine
> failure. Doesn't happen in water cooled engines that heat the intake
> manifold with coolant.

Carb ice, fuel starvation, broken throttle control... The list goes own
and own.



>
> As for the safety record of Lyc vs others, I have to grant that I'd have to
> pick my examples pretty carefully to find an uncertificated homebuilt with a
> better record. Such examples exist. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/ for one.

You're going to have to be very careful indeed. If just one of the
engines has failed it will probably push it into a worst record than Lyc
and TCM because of the number of those engines and hours that they have
flown.


>
> But I think you'd have to admit that if a major manufacturer (Toyota or GM
> maybe) decided to do it, a properly engineered aircraft engine could be
> developed that would be so utterly reliable that this kind of thing would
> not happen.

GM and Toyota engines fail all the time. Only when it happens you just
pull it over to the curb.

>
> My point is that the factors that have combined to make sure this
> hypothetical engine does not exist (legal and regulatory) have cost many
> lives over the past 40 years in the name of safety.
>
>

You can no more prove that than I could prove the statement if reversed.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:30:52 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote:

> > No support that it was an engine failure? How about the pilot's own words, a
> > few seconds before she died? She SAID she was losing power! OK it could well
> > have been something stupid like carb ice. I'd list that as an engine
> > failure. Doesn't happen in water cooled engines that heat the intake
> > manifold with coolant.
>
> Carb ice, fuel starvation, broken throttle control... The list goes on
> and on.

Since there's so many RVs, I've been able to run a parallel analysis of RV
accident causes to see how they vary from the general homebuilt causes.

RVs have significantly higher accident rates due to fuel exhaustion, VFR in IFR
conditions, and carburetor icing.

The first two can probably be mostly explained by the RV's suitability for
cross-country flight; they're more likely to be used for pure transportation
than a Kitfox, etc. and are thus more likely to run out of fuel prematurely or
have the pilot try to push weather. In fact, the RV rates closely reflect those
of my Cessna 172/210 control group.

I've been told that many RVs don't have conventional muff-type carb heat. If
so, this could somewhat explain the higher accident rate due to icing.

[Please note that I am writing in general here...I do not have any insight into
specifics of the recent accident.]

Ron Wanttaja

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote

> GM and Toyota engines fail all the time. Only when it happens you just
> pull it over to the curb. the statement if reversed.

Maybe it is just luck, but in the last 28 years of driving, I have never had
one of my GM vehicles leave me on the side of the road with an engine
failure.

These are not new babied cars, either. I always drive them to well over 130
thousand.

A had a fuel pump go out and the engine quit dead. In an aircraft, there
would have been a backup pump.

I blew a head gasket one time, but I drove the remaining 10 miles home, no
problem. The same could have been done with an aircraft.

So although there are engine failures on any engine, good PM will go a long
way. I'm quite satisfied with the quality of my GM vehicles. I would put
them beside Lyconentals, anytime.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:

> So although there are engine failures on any engine, good PM will go a long
> way. I'm quite satisfied with the quality of my GM vehicles. I would put
> them beside Lyconentals, anytime.

I didn't say GMs were any worse than Lycos and TCMs. I was refuting the
other posters claim that people were dieing left and right because we
weren't using them in aircraft.

My personal history with GM ended in the early '80s. But before than I
owned a 77 Camaro, a 79 Z28 Camaro and a 77 Corvette.

77 Camaro bought used no problem.
79 Z28 was shipped from the factory with no oil rings.
77 Corvette Cam shaft cracked in two.

[Sliker]

from the witness statements, it sounds like yet another stall/spin
type of accident. It seems with some homebuilts, there's a lot less
time to react when the engine stops, before a stall occurs. A few
seconds of wondering what to do, and the next thing the plane is
shuddering in a stall. I can see how it can happen, most probably the
pilot is trying to get the engine running and puts flying second to
that. And the higher the performance the homebuilt is, the harder it
seems to get it back on the ground in one piece when the engine goes
away. For most pilots, when the engine quits, he might be better off
not even wasting a moment messing with the engine at all, and instead
just use 100% of his skill to fly the thing to the ground.
Then if there's a lot of altitude, maybe try a few things on the way
down after a landing spot is selected and the speed is under control.
But making that decision almost instantly when the engine quits, that
you are not going to land at an airport and must make a forced landing
is not easy. The homebuilt I fly glides like a brick, and about the
only thing I can do to help it is to pull the prop control all the way
back. Then start looking for a place to put it down, and not far from
where the nose is pointed.

[Bugs66]

A B C

A - airspeed (best glide speed)
B - best landing field
C - checklist (restart)

[Dale Alexander]

And of course you drive them at 65-75% power all the time, right? That would
be like driving everywhere with the throttle application just short of
passing gear...all the time. That would be like drivng up the worlds longest
hill...all the time. Sure pal...

Give me a break. I've replaced more in-tank fuel pumps on GM's in the last
six months than I care to remember. GMs' have probably had more recalls than
the next three manufacturers combined. Next you'll tell me that rotaries are
the next hot ticket item.

Dale Alexander

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote
>
>> GM and Toyota engines fail all the time. Only when it happens you just
>> pull it over to the curb. the statement if reversed.
>
> Maybe it is just luck, but in the last 28 years of driving, I have never
> had one of my GM vehicles leave me on the side of the road with an engine
> failure.
>
> These are not new babied cars, either. I always drive them to well over
> 130 thousand.
>
> A had a fuel pump go out and the engine quit dead. In an aircraft, there
> would have been a backup pump.
>
> I blew a head gasket one time, but I drove the remaining 10 miles home, no
> problem. The same could have been done with an aircraft.
>
> So although there are engine failures on any engine, good PM will go a
> long way. I'm quite satisfied with the quality of my GM vehicles. I
> would put them beside Lyconentals, anytime.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[[email protected]]

On Feb 19, 9:40*am, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:30:52 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
>
> > wrote:
> > > No support that it was an engine failure? How about the pilot's own words, a
> > > few seconds before she died? She SAID she was losing power! OK it could well
> > > have been something stupid like carb ice. I'd list that as an engine
> > > failure. Doesn't happen in water cooled engines that heat the intake
> > > manifold with coolant.
>
> > Carb ice, fuel starvation, broken throttle control... The list goes on
> > and on.
>
> Since there's so many RVs, I've been able to run a parallel analysis of RV
> accident causes to see how they vary from the general homebuilt causes.
>
> RVs have significantly higher accident rates due to fuel exhaustion, VFR in IFR
> conditions, and carburetor icing. *
>
> The first two can probably be mostly explained by the RV's suitability for
> cross-country flight; they're more likely to be used for pure transportation
> than a Kitfox, etc. and are thus more likely to run out of fuel prematurely or
> have the pilot try to push weather. *In fact, the RV rates closely reflect those
> of my Cessna 172/210 control group.
>
> I've been told that many RVs don't have conventional muff-type carb heat. *If
> so, this could somewhat explain the higher accident rate due to icing.
>
> [Please note that I am writing in general here...I do not have any insight into
> specifics of the recent accident.]
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Ron, do you have this stuff up on your web site? If not, it would be a
very valuable addition.

Thanks for your efforts in this regard.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dale Alexander" > wrote in message
...
> And of course you drive them at 65-75% power all the time, right? That
> would be like driving everywhere with the throttle application just short
> of passing gear...all the time. That would be like drivng up the worlds
> longest hill...all the time. Sure pal...
>
> Give me a break. I've replaced more in-tank fuel pumps on GM's in the last
> six months than I care to remember. GMs' have probably had more recalls
> than the next three manufacturers combined. Next you'll tell me that
> rotaries are the next hot ticket item.

Many owners run their V-6 and V-8 engines in boats MORE than 75 percent,
most ALL the time, without problem. As far as recalls go, for my Astro van,
I had one for a plastic part on the brake pedal, one for something about the
throttle position sensor, and I think there was one more not having anything
to do with the engine that was so minor I don't even remember it.

The fuel pump in the tank was replaced the first time at around 160 thousand
miles. Pretty ****ty pump, huh? If your customers followed the maintenance
schedules for replacing fuel filters, perhaps they would get the kind of
service out of them, that I have.

The engine in the Astro has 197 thousand on it, and has never had anything
done to it other than normal wear items, like water pump, alternator, and
sensors. Still uses less than a quarter of a quart of oil per 3 thousand
mile oil change, has good compression and good power output.

By the way, I use mine to haul tools and work trailers, with around 750
pounds of tools, daily. I know it does not run at 75% power output, because
the cops would have me pulled all of the time for speeding. I haul heavy
trailers frequently, with an occasional trailer weighing more than three
tons.

I will concede that GM automatic transmissions are ****. So are most of the
US automatic transmissions, from all of the auto makers, from what I hear.

Say what you will. The GM 4.3 and 5.7 engines are as close to bulletproof
as any engine made ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.

If you don't feel that way, fine. It's a free country, here in the US.

I'll jump in a GM powered airplane any day, as long as the PSRU and fuel
system have been properly engineered, and tested. That is the only weak
link, in my opinion.
--
Jim in NC

[stol]

On Feb 19, 4:10*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Dale Alexander" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > And of course you drive them at 65-75% power all the time, right? That
> > would be like driving everywhere with the throttle application just short
> > of passing gear...all the time. That would be like drivng up the worlds
> > longest hill...all the time. Sure pal...
>
> > Give me a break. I've replaced more in-tank fuel pumps on GM's in the last
> > six months than I care to remember. GMs' have probably had more recalls
> > than the next three manufacturers combined. Next you'll tell me that
> > rotaries are the next hot ticket item.
>
> Many owners run their V-6 and V-8 engines in boats MORE than 75 percent,
> most ALL the time, without problem. *As far as recalls go, for my Astro van,
> I had one for a plastic part on the brake pedal, one for something about the
> throttle position sensor, and I think there was one more not having anything
> to do with the engine that was so minor I don't even remember it.
>
> The fuel pump in the tank was replaced the first time at around 160 thousand
> miles. *Pretty ****ty pump, huh? *If your customers followed the maintenance
> schedules for replacing fuel filters, perhaps they would get the kind of
> service out of them, that I have.
>
> The engine in the Astro has 197 thousand on it, and has never had anything
> done to it other than normal wear items, like water pump, alternator, and
> sensors. *Still uses less than a quarter of a quart of oil per 3 thousand
> mile oil change, has good compression and good power output.
>
> By the way, I use mine to haul tools and work trailers, with around 750
> pounds of tools, daily. *I know it does not run at 75% power output, because
> the cops would have me pulled all of the time for speeding. *I haul heavy
> trailers frequently, with an occasional trailer weighing more than three
> tons.
>
> I will concede that GM automatic transmissions are ****. *So are most of the
> US automatic transmissions, from all of the auto makers, from what I hear.
>
> Say what you will. *The GM 4.3 and 5.7 engines are as close to bulletproof
> as any engine made ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.
>
> If you don't feel that way, fine. *It's a free country, here in the US.
>
> I'll jump in a GM powered airplane any day, as long as the PSRU and fuel
> system have been properly engineered, and tested. *That is the only weak
> link, in my opinion.
> --
> Jim in NC

Now you have hurt my feelers.... { :- ((...

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

[Peter Dohm]

"Dale Alexander" > wrote in message
...
> And of course you drive them at 65-75% power all the time, right? That
> would be like driving everywhere with the throttle application just short
> of passing gear...all the time. That would be like drivng up the worlds
> longest hill...all the time. Sure pal...
>
As a matter of fact, a lot of automotive and light truck based engines are
subjected to just that sort of service in marine applications, generators,
etc. They seem to tolerate it quite well in a properly designed
installation.

> Give me a break. I've replaced more in-tank fuel pumps on GM's in the last
> six months than I care to remember. GMs' have probably had more recalls
> than the next three manufacturers combined. Next you'll tell me that
> rotaries are the next hot ticket item.
>
> Dale Alexander
>
As far as the rotaries go, you seem to have missed that whole sequence by at
least ten years.

Other than the obvious poor fuel efficiency, which was probably no worse
than two-cycle engines, I really can't comment--because I never saw an
installation (or plans for one) with properly designed cooling.

Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"stol" > wrote

Now you have hurt my feelers.... { :- ((...

OOooops!

I intended to say that the PSRU ((_CAN_ )) be the weak link in an auto
conversion. Cooling, too, but you can generally tell you have a problem
with that, and deal with it without much catastrophic surprise.

From what I have seen from your site, it appears as though the installations
done by you are first class, and should hold up very well. I don't have any
first, second or third hand actual experience with knowing someone who has
used one of yours, though.

I know of at least one of Northwest's (I think that is the name of one of
your companies competing companies) in an acquaintance's airplane, and it
has done very well.

The problems come in when someone gets a bell housing from a 56 Chevy, and
puts some gears in it out of a 79 Ford, with a Dodge spider gear. Who
knows how that will work? Not too good, probably! <g>

Out of all of the styles of PSRU's out there, I tend to like the design of
the toothed belt setups. It just looks right, I think, and seems to solve a
lot of tricky problems, (like harmonic and torsional vibration) in a simple
way.
--
Jim in NC

[Charlie[_2_]]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:38:29 -0900, "Ron Webb" > wrote:
>
>> As for the safety record of Lyc vs others, I have to grant that I'd have to
>> pick my examples pretty carefully to find an uncertificated homebuilt with a
>> better record. Such examples exist. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/ for one.
>
> I did a study of homebuilt accidents over a ~8 year period. Didn't have fleet
> sizes for Lycosaur and Auto conversions, but instead looked at how often the
> engine was the *cause* of the accident.
>
> Out of 744 homebuilt accidents involving Lycoming, Continental, Franklin,
> Jacobs, or Pratt and Whitney engines, 104 were due to some form of engine
> failure.
>
> Out of 219 homebuilt accidents in the same period involving auto-engine
> conversions, 63 were due to engine failure.
>
> Lycosaur: 14%
> Auto Engines: 28%.
>
> Offhand, I'd say the Lycosaurs are safer.
>
> For the purpose of my analysis, I counted the following as "due to engine
> failure":
>
> Internal failures (pistons, cranks, etc.)
> Fuel System on the engine side of the firewall
> Ignition systems
> Drive systems (e.g., PSRUs)
> Oil System
> Carburetor or fuel injector failure
> Cooling system failure
> Undetermined loss of power
>
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>
>
I've followed your articles on accident stats for several years; thank
you for doing the research. I wonder, though, if your conclusion about
Lycs is really valid.

If we factor in the reality that Lyc installations are more or less
'standardized', with help almost always available from knowledgeable
predecessors, compared to auto conversions where each is nearly unique,
and we factor in the unpleasant fact (sorry guys) that many of the
people most willing to do an auto conversion are the least qualified to
tackle it, how much should we weight the percentages? Only if you add
the word 'installation' to each category can you reach the conclusion
that Lycs are actually safer, in my opinion.

What do you think?

Charlie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> As far as the rotaries go, you seem to have missed that whole sequence by
> at least ten years.
>
> Other than the obvious poor fuel efficiency, which was probably no worse
> than two-cycle engines, I really can't comment--because I never saw an
> installation (or plans for one) with properly designed cooling.

There has been one at OSH for all of the 4 or 5 times I was there, that
seemed to get along quite well. Tracy Crook -
<http://www.rotaryaviation.com/>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Charlie" > wrote

> compared to auto conversions where each is nearly unique, and we factor in
> the unpleasant fact (sorry guys) that many of the people most willing to
> do an auto conversion are the least qualified to tackle it,

If you are trolling, nice try. Otherwise, how do you support this
conclusion?

Nice slap in the face to all those guys that have auto installations humming
happily along. There are bunches of them, and it WOULDN'T be a stretch to
say that they are pretty darn clever bunch, indeed.

Anyone capable of building a kit with all the holes drilled and all the
parts included can hang a Lyconental. It takes a clever person to use an
auto engine. I would hardly classify that as "least qualified."
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:44:57 -0600, Charlie > wrote:

> If we factor in the reality that Lyc installations are more or less
> 'standardized', with help almost always available from knowledgeable
> predecessors, compared to auto conversions where each is nearly unique,
> and we factor in the unpleasant fact (sorry guys) that many of the
> people most willing to do an auto conversion are the least qualified to
> tackle it, how much should we weight the percentages? Only if you add
> the word 'installation' to each category can you reach the conclusion
> that Lycs are actually safer, in my opinion.
>
> What do you think?

I understand your logic, but don't agree with it. I look at the powerplant as a
*package*. If the engine itself is more reliable, but it's difficult to achieve
an installation that allows it to show its reliability, I don't feel that it
exonerates the engine as an aircraft powerplant. That's why my statistics
include fuel system problems FWF as an engine-related failure...if all else were
equal, Lycomings and, say, Fords should see the same rate of fuel FWF accidents.
If there's a difference, that means one is more picky as to the quality of the
fuel system install. FWIW, auto-engine conversions seem to have fewer instances
of FWF fuel system problems than certified engines.

The very standardization of the LyConts means that the average builder has a
better chance of achieving a reliable installation.

One has to understand what statistics in these cases really *mean*. The fact
that 25% of aircraft accidents aren't caused by "N" DOESN"T mean that *you* have
a 25% chance of having an accident due to "N". It means, out of 100 owners, 25
of them will suffer that kind of accident. If "N" is due to installation
errors, and you spend extra care on your installation, get advice, use quality
materials, etc., then you are less likely to experience that kind of accident.

BTW, I do track installation errors (I call them "builder errors") in my
analyses.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:05:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:

> Ron, do you have this stuff up on your web site? If not, it would be a
> very valuable addition.

I don't, though I do write regular articles on these subjects and give talks at
local EAA Chapters. The EAA Chapters are the fun ones, 'cause then I brief the
accident rates for specific homebuilts. :-)

The auto engine vs. LyCont study I performed is the subject of a short article I
wrote for EAA Sport Aviation, it should be out pretty soon. Kitplanes has asked
for another comprehensive accident article; I'll be updating my database with
the 2005 and 2006 accidents pretty soon and starting to work. They usually have
the October issue as the "safety" one.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:16:53 -0500, "Morgans" > wrote:

> I intended to say that the PSRU ((_CAN_ )) be the weak link in an auto
> conversion. Cooling, too, but you can generally tell you have a problem
> with that, and deal with it without much catastrophic surprise.

You've actually nailed two of the three main areas where auto engine conversions
suffer reliability-wise vs. certified engines. The third is ignition system...
about 19% of the fixed-wing auto-engine failures involved the ignition, compared
to just 8% of the certified engines on fixed-wing homebuilts.

As far as "are auto engines strong enough internally for aircraft use," my
feeling is yes. The accident rates due to internal failures of the engines
(thrown rods, burned pistons, broken cranks, etc.) is just about the same as for
certified engines.

Ron Wanttaja

[Denny]

Well, my reference is 6 decades of banging around behind aircraft
engines of various makes, Lyc, Cont, P&W, Franklin, etc... In that
time period I have had one sudden engine failure, a Continental on T-
Craft that blew a jug <landed in a field, fixed it, flew it out>..
Also in that time period I have had at least a dozen <or more, but
who's counting> sudden engine failures in cars/trucks/boats...
Now for you statisticians, yes I have many more hours behind auto/boat
engines than aircraft... But if the auto engines had been maintained
to the standard of aircraft engines likely I would have had few or no
failures...

So, for me the issue is reliability... Based on my experience I will
stay with certified aircraft engines for my airplanes...
I do not claim that an auto engine is intrinsically less reliable when
used in an aircraft... But I can certainly tell from being around
experimental aircraft since the early 1960's that aircraft engine
installations are more reliable than auto conversion installations...
The major factor here is the quality of the engineering in the
installation/conversion...

You can argue that the aircraft engine is more reliable only because
of standardization of parts, installation, etc. and from continued
refinements from analyzing the failures that have occured - which is
why we have dual magneto's, etc...
And you can hypothesize that if Toyota were to get into the piston
airplane engine market that their level of engineering expertise and
the financial resources they can bring to bear would result in a
reliable auto engine conversion equaling any Lyc, etc... And you
would be right... And the cost to buy, install, and maintain, that
certified auto engine will not be one penny less than a certified
Lycosaurus - see the Mooney / Porsche if you don't believe it...

But that generalized certified auto conversion hasn't happened yet...
And the vast majority of shade tree mechanic installations in aircraft
have been less than world class in quality and reliability... So,
being a betting man <every time I strap on a plane> I will bet with
the odds not against...

denny

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
>> As far as the rotaries go, you seem to have missed that whole sequence by
>> at least ten years.
>>
>> Other than the obvious poor fuel efficiency, which was probably no worse
>> than two-cycle engines, I really can't comment--because I never saw an
>> installation (or plans for one) with properly designed cooling.
>
> There has been one at OSH for all of the 4 or 5 times I was there, that
> seemed to get along quite well. Tracy Crook -
> <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/>
> --
> Jim in NC
>
Thanks Jim,

I could probably squirm out by saying that it hadn't actually seem it, which
is true, but the fact is that I simply forgot and I stand corrected. Tracy
Crook, and his work are quite famous (especially in the RV community) and I
would really like to take a look at his installation to see just how much
radiator he needed in a tractor installation with plenty of ram air--a good
look with the pilot/builder present is sure to be informative and I would
like to hear his opinion of other installations. I would be especially
curious what he thinks about pushers with ducted intakes because consistent
cooling has been somewhat elusive in southern Florida.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Denny" > wrote in message
...
> Well, my reference is 6 decades of banging around behind aircraft
> engines of various makes, Lyc, Cont, P&W, Franklin, etc... In that
> time period I have had one sudden engine failure, a Continental on T-
> Craft that blew a jug <landed in a field, fixed it, flew it out>..
> Also in that time period I have had at least a dozen <or more, but
> who's counting> sudden engine failures in cars/trucks/boats...
> Now for you statisticians, yes I have many more hours behind auto/boat
> engines than aircraft... But if the auto engines had been maintained
> to the standard of aircraft engines likely I would have had few or no
> failures...
>
> So, for me the issue is reliability... Based on my experience I will
> stay with certified aircraft engines for my airplanes...
> I do not claim that an auto engine is intrinsically less reliable when
> used in an aircraft... But I can certainly tell from being around
> experimental aircraft since the early 1960's that aircraft engine
> installations are more reliable than auto conversion installations...
> The major factor here is the quality of the engineering in the
> installation/conversion...
>
> You can argue that the aircraft engine is more reliable only because
> of standardization of parts, installation, etc. and from continued
> refinements from analyzing the failures that have occured - which is
> why we have dual magneto's, etc...
> And you can hypothesize that if Toyota were to get into the piston
> airplane engine market that their level of engineering expertise and
> the financial resources they can bring to bear would result in a
> reliable auto engine conversion equaling any Lyc, etc... And you
> would be right... And the cost to buy, install, and maintain, that
> certified auto engine will not be one penny less than a certified
> Lycosaurus - see the Mooney / Porsche if you don't believe it...
>
> But that generalized certified auto conversion hasn't happened yet...
> And the vast majority of shade tree mechanic installations in aircraft
> have been less than world class in quality and reliability... So,
> being a betting man <every time I strap on a plane> I will bet with
> the odds not against...
>
> denny

That is absolutely the best summation that I have read in a long time!

Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> I could probably squirm out by saying that it hadn't actually seem it,
> which is true, but the fact is that I simply forgot and I stand corrected.
> Tracy Crook, and his work are quite famous (especially in the RV
> community) and I would really like to take a look at his installation to
> see just how much radiator he needed in a tractor installation with plenty
> of ram air--a good look with the pilot/builder present is sure to be
> informative and I would like to hear his opinion of other installations.

His installation that I saw (he has since put a newer engine in) used two GM
air conditioner condensers as radiator, and strangely enough, that is a
pretty popular choice. I don't know if he started that trend, or if he got
the idea from someone else. I have also seen Ford 3.8's and Chevy 4.3's in
airplanes with the same setup.

As I recall, he used them parallel in the cooling line, and had them placed
directly behind the standard cowl twin inlets.

The other popular radator placements I have seen use the radiator back at
the firewall, with the top of the engine baffled off from the bottom, and
had the cooling air go past the top of the engine, through the radiator,
then into the engine compartment, then out the normal lower outlet.

> I would be especially curious what he thinks about pushers with ducted
> intakes because consistent cooling has been somewhat elusive in southern
> Florida.

Indeed. Use of NACA type of inlets have usually failed, badly. The type of
scoop that works the best is a P-51 type of scoop, mounted above or below
the engine.

The key is to have the air flow through the radiator first, then past the
engine, (or directly out into the air) because if the air picks up engine
heat then goes through the radiator, it is sure to fail.

The other key to this type of arrangement is getting the outlet into a good
low pressure area. I have seen some that looked like the twin round inlets,
only they are the outlets. They are indeed tricky to get right, it seems.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
>> I could probably squirm out by saying that it hadn't actually seem it,
>> which is true, but the fact is that I simply forgot and I stand
>> corrected. Tracy Crook, and his work are quite famous (especially in the
>> RV community) and I would really like to take a look at his installation
>> to see just how much radiator he needed in a tractor installation with
>> plenty of ram air--a good look with the pilot/builder present is sure to
>> be informative and I would like to hear his opinion of other
>> installations.
>
> His installation that I saw (he has since put a newer engine in) used two
> GM air conditioner condensers as radiator, and strangely enough, that is a
> pretty popular choice. I don't know if he started that trend, or if he
> got the idea from someone else. I have also seen Ford 3.8's and Chevy
> 4.3's in airplanes with the same setup.
>
> As I recall, he used them parallel in the cooling line, and had them
> placed directly behind the standard cowl twin inlets.

I think that you may mean heater cores, which would have a larger water
passage, but I am hoping for a look if I go to SnF this year. The layout
that you mention is very similar to one that I have seen used successfully
on a Subaru conversion in a KR2--although I don't know who may have done it
first.

>
> The other popular radator placements I have seen use the radiator back at
> the firewall, with the top of the engine baffled off from the bottom, and
> had the cooling air go past the top of the engine, through the radiator,
> then into the engine compartment, then out the normal lower outlet.
>
>> I would be especially curious what he thinks about pushers with ducted
>> intakes because consistent cooling has been somewhat elusive in southern
>> Florida.
>
> Indeed. Use of NACA type of inlets have usually failed, badly. The type
> of scoop that works the best is a P-51 type of scoop, mounted above or
> below the engine.
>
> The key is to have the air flow through the radiator first, then past the
> engine, (or directly out into the air) because if the air picks up engine
> heat then goes through the radiator, it is sure to fail.

I think that you are essentially correct, although I don't know how much of
the problem is engine compartment heating and how much is poorly organized
airflow if the air must flow past the engine.

>
> The other key to this type of arrangement is getting the outlet into a
> good low pressure area. I have seen some that looked like the twin round
> inlets, only they are the outlets. They are indeed tricky to get right,
> it seems.

Tricky seems to be an understatement, especially when using airports that
demand an estended ground run!

> --
> Jim in NC
>
Peter

[Charlie[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Charlie" > wrote
>
>> compared to auto conversions where each is nearly unique, and we factor in
>> the unpleasant fact (sorry guys) that many of the people most willing to
>> do an auto conversion are the least qualified to tackle it,
>
> If you are trolling, nice try. Otherwise, how do you support this
> conclusion?
>
> Nice slap in the face to all those guys that have auto installations humming
> happily along. There are bunches of them, and it WOULDN'T be a stretch to
> say that they are pretty darn clever bunch, indeed.
>
> Anyone capable of building a kit with all the holes drilled and all the
> parts included can hang a Lyconental. It takes a clever person to use an
> auto engine. I would hardly classify that as "least qualified."
Not trolling; just stating facts. If I said that the majority of a/c
accidents were due to pilot error, it might feel like a slap in the face
to pilots who don't make mistakes, but it would still be true.

I *want* alternative engines to succeed. I believe that many of them can
succeed, if done right. I've spent years learning everything I can about
one design that I hope to install on a homebuilt one day.

The fact that almost any klutz can hang a Lyc, and it takes a lot more
expertise to do an alternative installation, is precisely my point.

I've concluded, from quite a few years of talking with & observing guys
doing alternative engines, that many do not have any feel for what it
takes to make an engine installation succeed. The 1st clue is wanting to
hang 350-400 hp (& an extra 200 lbs) on a plane designed for 180 hp.
Think about how often you hear that, and see the attempt to do it. There
are lots of specifics, like not being able to either solder or run a
crimping tool, not having any idea of what makes air flow through a heat
exchanger efficiently, etc.

My point, which I believe Ron's answer supports, is that the 2X accident
rate for alternative engines is driven by the lack of adequate expertise
on the part of (some) builders, not the engines themselves. This is not
a knock on all alternative engine installers. I'm just saying that those
who truly understand the challenges & would probably have a better
chance of success, often choose Lyc because they really do understand
the challenges. Many (not all, but many) who forge ahead with
alternative installations do so with no understanding of what it takes
to do a successful installation.

I hope that you'll see this like telling a low-time pilot friend that he
really shouldn't take off in a 200 mph homebuilt on a long cross country
under a 1000 ft ceiling & unstable weather. You aren't putting him down;
you're just asking him to realistically evaluate his experience &
abilities, relative to the task at hand.

Charlie

[stol]

On Feb 20, 2:21*pm, Charlie > wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
> > "Charlie" > wrote
>
> >> compared to auto conversions where each is nearly unique, and we factor in
> >> the unpleasant fact (sorry guys) that many of the people most willing to
> >> do an auto conversion are the least qualified to tackle it,
>
> > If you are trolling, nice try. *Otherwise, how do you support this
> > conclusion?
>
> > Nice slap in the face to all those guys that have auto installations humming
> > happily along. *There are bunches of them, and it WOULDN'T be a stretch to
> > say that they are pretty darn clever bunch, indeed.
>
> > Anyone capable of building a kit with all the holes drilled and all the
> > parts included can hang a Lyconental. *It takes a clever person to use an
> > auto engine. *I would hardly classify that as "least qualified."
>
> Not trolling; just stating facts. If I said that the majority of a/c
> accidents were due to pilot error, it might feel like a slap in the face
> to pilots who don't make mistakes, but it would still be true.
>
> I *want* alternative engines to succeed. I believe that many of them can
> succeed, if done
> Charlie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

to do a successful installation.> on the part of (some) builders, not
the engines themselves. This is not
> a knock on all alternative engine installers. I'm just saying that those
> who truly understand the challenges & would probably have a better
> chance of success, often choose Lyc because they really do understand
> the challenges. Many (not all, but many) who forge ahead with
> alternative installations do so
>

There is a reason we call these Experimental homebuilt planes...
According to the FAA we build them for the "educational and
recreational aspect. Hell, a trained monkey can assemble any one of
the new quick build kits on the market, all it has to do is cleco,
rivet and fly....

Ben ( an auto engine junkie) Haas
www.haaspowerair.com
N801BH,

PS, I just got a video camera and shot some footage this mornin of my
beast. If I can figure out how to load it to YouTube or something
similar you can view an auto engine powered homebuilt boring holes
through -6 f skies here in Jackson Hole....

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Charlie" > wrote

> I hope that you'll see this like telling a low-time pilot friend that he
> really shouldn't take off in a 200 mph homebuilt on a long cross country
> under a 1000 ft ceiling & unstable weather. You aren't putting him down;
> you're just asking him to realistically evaluate his experience &
> abilities, relative to the task at hand.re are


OK; I'll take your comments at face value, with the attitude of not being a
put-down, but don't throw the baby out with the bath.

You need to keep in mind all the people that do not enter an alternate
engine installation with rose colored glasses, and do their homework. It
seems like many people with exceptional mechanical skills are ones that
forge ahead, and make their installation a success. No doubt that there are
people that do get in over their heads, but please, don't forget the people
that are intent on making a special display of their mechanical abilities.

They deserve all of the special recognition they can get. I've seen some
pretty spectacular alternate engine installations. Works of art, describe
them well.

I guess I am sensitive because I hope to one day engineer a system. I will
definitely be ready for it, if/when I do it. Part of my plan is to build an
air boat, and run the snot out of the system on the water, where if
something does not work, the result will be getting a trolling motor out.
One of the ones that run on a battery, not a newsgroup! <g>

I wish you luck if you end up putting something together. It would be a
source of great pride for you, I'm sure.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"stol" > wrote

There is a reason we call these Experimental homebuilt planes...
According to the FAA we build them for the "educational and
recreational aspect. Hell, a trained monkey can assemble any one of
the new quick build kits on the market, all it has to do is cleco,
rivet and fly....

Jim: - - - Well, at least a dedicated trained monkey, anyway!

Ben ( an auto engine junkie) Haas
www.haaspowerair.com
N801BH,

PS, I just got a video camera and shot some footage this mornin of my
beast. If I can figure out how to load it to YouTube or something
similar you can view an auto engine powered homebuilt boring holes
through -6 f skies here in Jackson Hole....

Jim: - - - Right oN! !

Jim: - - - Do something else, for us auto engine junkie admirers. Some time
when you have the cowl off, give a close up video tour of the installation,
and narrate about some of the pitfalls you have had to avoid, what has
worked out well, and what you want to improve on. That kind of thing, you
know. I'm sure you could get creative and make up your own program, but I
can never get enough of poking around a good fire wall forward auto engine
installation, up close and personal!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> I think that you may mean heater cores, which would have a larger water
> passage, but I am hoping for a look if I go to SnF this year.

No, I'm pretty sure they were AC condensors.

> The layout that you mention is very similar to one that I have seen used
> successfully on a Subaru conversion in a KR2--although I don't know who
> may have done it first.

>
> Tricky seems to be an understatement, especially when using airports that
> demand an estended ground run!

I have never understood why a person would not include an electric fan to
pull air through the radiator, when necessary ground runs do not provide
enough air flow.

That would be 5 pounds well spent, I would think. I will include one if my
installation ever takes place, unless someone could come up with a reason
not to include it.
--
Jim in NC

[Charlie[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Charlie" > wrote
>
>> I hope that you'll see this like telling a low-time pilot friend that he
>> really shouldn't take off in a 200 mph homebuilt on a long cross country
>> under a 1000 ft ceiling & unstable weather. You aren't putting him down;
>> you're just asking him to realistically evaluate his experience &
>> abilities, relative to the task at hand.re are
>
>
> OK; I'll take your comments at face value, with the attitude of not being a
> put-down, but don't throw the baby out with the bath.
>
> You need to keep in mind all the people that do not enter an alternate
> engine installation with rose colored glasses, and do their homework. It
> seems like many people with exceptional mechanical skills are ones that
> forge ahead, and make their installation a success. No doubt that there are
> people that do get in over their heads, but please, don't forget the people
> that are intent on making a special display of their mechanical abilities.
>
> They deserve all of the special recognition they can get. I've seen some
> pretty spectacular alternate engine installations. Works of art, describe
> them well.
>
> I guess I am sensitive because I hope to one day engineer a system. I will
> definitely be ready for it, if/when I do it. Part of my plan is to build an
> air boat, and run the snot out of the system on the water, where if
> something does not work, the result will be getting a trolling motor out.
> One of the ones that run on a battery, not a newsgroup! <g>
>
> I wish you luck if you end up putting something together. It would be a
> source of great pride for you, I'm sure.

I hope to do the same, & I've had the same thought about using a boat
(probably dragging a sea anchor to keep the speed safe) for testing.

I very reluctantly bought a Lyc core last fall for my project airplane.
I may yet sell it & go back to my original goal of alternative power; it
really is frustrating to build a basically pre-fabbed airframe & not do
at least a little experimenting. :-)

Charlie

[Charlie[_2_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>>
>>> I could probably squirm out by saying that it hadn't actually seem it,
>>> which is true, but the fact is that I simply forgot and I stand
>>> corrected. Tracy Crook, and his work are quite famous (especially in the
>>> RV community) and I would really like to take a look at his installation
>>> to see just how much radiator he needed in a tractor installation with
>>> plenty of ram air--a good look with the pilot/builder present is sure to
>>> be informative and I would like to hear his opinion of other
>>> installations.
>> His installation that I saw (he has since put a newer engine in) used two
>> GM air conditioner condensers as radiator, and strangely enough, that is a
>> pretty popular choice. I don't know if he started that trend, or if he
>> got the idea from someone else. I have also seen Ford 3.8's and Chevy
>> 4.3's in airplanes with the same setup.
>>
>> As I recall, he used them parallel in the cooling line, and had them
>> placed directly behind the standard cowl twin inlets.
>
> I think that you may mean heater cores, which would have a larger water
> passage, but I am hoping for a look if I go to SnF this year. The layout
> that you mention is very similar to one that I have seen used successfully
> on a Subaru conversion in a KR2--although I don't know who may have done it
> first.
>
>> The other popular radator placements I have seen use the radiator back at
>> the firewall, with the top of the engine baffled off from the bottom, and
>> had the cooling air go past the top of the engine, through the radiator,
>> then into the engine compartment, then out the normal lower outlet.
>>
>>> I would be especially curious what he thinks about pushers with ducted
>>> intakes because consistent cooling has been somewhat elusive in southern
>>> Florida.
>> Indeed. Use of NACA type of inlets have usually failed, badly. The type
>> of scoop that works the best is a P-51 type of scoop, mounted above or
>> below the engine.
>>
>> The key is to have the air flow through the radiator first, then past the
>> engine, (or directly out into the air) because if the air picks up engine
>> heat then goes through the radiator, it is sure to fail.
>
> I think that you are essentially correct, although I don't know how much of
> the problem is engine compartment heating and how much is poorly organized
> airflow if the air must flow past the engine.
>
>> The other key to this type of arrangement is getting the outlet into a
>> good low pressure area. I have seen some that looked like the twin round
>> inlets, only they are the outlets. They are indeed tricky to get right,
>> it seems.
>
> Tricky seems to be an understatement, especially when using airports that
> demand an estended ground run!
>
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
> Peter
>
>
Actually, they are GM *evaporator* cores, the heat exchanger that's
mounted in the dash to cool the air.

I've seen his installation on average about once a year for the last 10
years, & watched it evolve over the years from carbs to injection & from
the original 13B to the Renesis engine core. I think that if you ask
him, he'd tell you that they were 1. available, 2. affordable, 3. fit in
the stock cowl, 4. actually turn out to be fairly close to the right
thickness for a relatively high speed homebuilt like an RV-x.

His work is sublime pragmatism. A marketing exec would go into cardiac
arrest just looking at it, but everything is carefully engineered to be
good enough with nothing extra. For instance, the intake plenum is a
fiberglas covered plywood box. But inside the box are details (which he
openly describes to anyone who will listen) that almost everyone ignores
when they build an intake system (and almost no one else achieves his
performance). Which brings us back to my earlier posts about too many
people not doing their homework before doing a conversion project.

Charlie

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
>> I think that you may mean heater cores, which would have a larger water
>> passage, but I am hoping for a look if I go to SnF this year.
>
> No, I'm pretty sure they were AC condensors.
>
>> The layout that you mention is very similar to one that I have seen used
>> successfully on a Subaru conversion in a KR2--although I don't know who
>> may have done it first.
>
>>
>> Tricky seems to be an understatement, especially when using airports that
>> demand an estended ground run!
>
> I have never understood why a person would not include an electric fan to
> pull air through the radiator, when necessary ground runs do not provide
> enough air flow.
>
> That would be 5 pounds well spent, I would think. I will include one if
> my installation ever takes place, unless someone could come up with a
> reason not to include it.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
I have wondered about the exact same thing, and am leaning toward the same
solution.

Peter

[Charles Vincent]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>>
>>> I think that you may mean heater cores, which would have a larger water
>>> passage, but I am hoping for a look if I go to SnF this year.
>> No, I'm pretty sure they were AC condensors.
>>
>>> The layout that you mention is very similar to one that I have seen used
>>> successfully on a Subaru conversion in a KR2--although I don't know who
>>> may have done it first.
>>> Tricky seems to be an understatement, especially when using airports that
>>> demand an estended ground run!
>> I have never understood why a person would not include an electric fan to
>> pull air through the radiator, when necessary ground runs do not provide
>> enough air flow.
>>
>> That would be 5 pounds well spent, I would think. I will include one if
>> my installation ever takes place, unless someone could come up with a
>> reason not to include it.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
> I have wondered about the exact same thing, and am leaning toward the same
> solution.
>
> Peter
>
>
I would guess because the fan is a liability to flow at speeds over
thirty or forty mph and because a twelve inch 1/8 hp fan has little to
offer over a 54 inch 40hp fan.

Charles

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 21, 12:10*am, Charles Vincent > wrote:
> Peter Dohm wrote:
> > "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
> >>> I think that you may mean heater cores, which would have a larger water
> >>> passage, but I am hoping for a look if I go to SnF this year.
> >> No, I'm pretty sure they were AC condensors.
>
> >>> The layout that you mention is very similar to one that I have seen used
> >>> successfully on a Subaru conversion in a KR2--although I don't know who
> >>> may have done it first.
> >>> Tricky seems to be an understatement, especially when using airports that
> >>> demand an estended ground run!
> >> I have never understood why a person would not include an electric fan to
> >> pull air through the radiator, when necessary ground runs do not provide
> >> enough air flow.
>
> >> That would be 5 pounds well spent, I would think. *I will include one if
> >> my installation ever takes place, unless someone could come up with a
> >> reason not to include it.
> >> --
> >> Jim in NC
>
> > I have wondered about the exact same thing, and am leaning toward the same
> > solution.
>
> > Peter
>
> I would guess because the fan is a liability to flow at speeds over
> thirty or forty mph and because a twelve inch 1/8 hp fan has little to
> offer over a 54 inch 40hp fan.
>
> Charles- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That would be my guess, and next I would wonder why people don't
install louvers controlled from inside the cabin to let the heat just
rise out of the engine compartment. I think some military planes of
WWII era had them.

Wil

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Charles Vincent" > wrote > I would guess because the fan
is a liability to flow at speeds over
> thirty or forty mph and because a twelve inch 1/8 hp fan has little to
> offer over a 54 inch 40hp fan.

But that big fan is trying to blow air into a couple 3 inch round holes, and
then diffuse that speed of airflow to many times the square inches of
radiator. What you end up with is no airflow past the radiator, and
overheating.

Instead, you put a fan right next to the radiator pulling air directly past
the radiator at a decent speed, with no diffusion losses.

It works. That's why cars have them. That's why water cooled airplanes
overheat if they tai for more than a few minutes.
--
Jim in NC

[stol]

On Feb 20, 5:10*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "stol" > wrote
>
> There is a reason we call these Experimental homebuilt planes...
> According to the FAA we build them for the "educational and
> recreational aspect. Hell, *a trained monkey can assemble *any one of
> the new quick build kits on the market, all it has to do is cleco,
> rivet and fly....
>
> Jim: - - - Well, at least a dedicated trained monkey, anyway!
>
> Ben ( an auto engine junkie) Haaswww.haaspowerair.com
> N801BH,
>
> PS, I just got a video camera and shot some footage this mornin of my
> beast. If I can figure out how to load it to YouTube or something
> similar you can view an auto engine powered homebuilt boring holes
> through -6 f skies here in Jackson Hole....
>
> Jim: - - - Right oN! !
>
> Jim: - - - Do something else, for us auto engine junkie admirers. *Some time
> when you have the cowl off, give a close up video tour of the installation,
> and narrate about some of the pitfalls you have had to avoid, what has
> worked out well, and what you want to improve on. *That kind of thing, you
> know. *I'm sure you could get creative and make up your own program, but I
> can never get enough of poking around a good fire wall forward auto engine
> installation, up close and personal!
> --
> Jim in NC

I have a conditional inspection coming up next month so a video
walkaround and comments on do's and don't is a great idea. What we
learn will benefit the future auto engine powered experimentals and I
want to help out where I can. Now if I can get Steven. P McNicolls to
narrate it, Bertie to do the comedy act and barnyard BOb to direct it
it should get me an Oscar. !! { : - ))....

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com
Lifetime EAA member.

[Maxwell]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Out of all of the styles of PSRU's out there, I tend to like the design of
> the toothed belt setups. It just looks right, I think, and seems to solve
> a lot of tricky problems, (like harmonic and torsional vibration) in a
> simple way.
> --

How do "toothed belt setups" solve harmonic and torsional vibrations
problems in a simple way?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Charlie" > wrote

> Actually, they are GM *evaporator* cores, the heat exchanger that's
> mounted in the dash to cool the air.


Yep, I knew that about 2 minutes after sending the post. Condensor would
be the little radiator out next to the car radiator. Oh well, at least
someone knew what I meant! <g>

> I've seen his installation on average about once a year for the last 10
> years, & watched it evolve over the years from carbs to injection & from
> the original 13B to the Renesis engine core. I think that if you ask him,
> he'd tell you that they were 1. available, 2. affordable, 3. fit in the
> stock cowl, 4. actually turn out to be fairly close to the right thickness
> for a relatively high speed homebuilt like an RV-x.

All true, but he plain likes rotary engines, too. Maybe goes past like a
littke bit, even!

> His work is sublime pragmatism. A marketing exec would go into cardiac
> arrest just looking at it, but everything is carefully engineered to be
> good enough with nothing extra.

Yep. Kinda' like the JB Weld around the fitting for the cooling fluid into
the _evaporator_ cores.
I definitely has a sound to it, screaming by on a low pass, though!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"stol" > wrote

I have a conditional inspection coming up next month so a video
walkaround and comments on do's and don't is a great idea. What we
learn will benefit the future auto engine powered experimentals and I
want to help out where I can. Now if I can get Steven. P McNicolls to
narrate it, Bertie to do the comedy act and barnyard BOb to direct it
it should get me an Oscar. !! { : - ))....

Throw in Ken Tucker to tell you how to fly it, and if you can get all of
that in one place and on film, you should go broker a peace deal in the
Middle East.
essaesseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeff

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote

> essaesseeeeee (big snip) eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeff

What the hell was that?????????????

Sorrry gang. I have no idea why that happened.
--
Jim in NC