On Mar 10, 4:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:6ed4470d-2dd8-4335-a052-
:





On Mar 10, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

You haven;'t flown enough antiques. I've hand lots and lots of
engine
failures.

Not yet -- you offering?

If I ever get the thing out in the shed done. It's potential for
deadsticking is relatively high. The rockers are dry, for one thing
and
need frequent greasing. the valve pushrods are expsed as well and
lashed
to each other in pairs so when they come adrift you don't lose them!
Goggle are mandatory just to keep the hot grease and oil out of your
eyes( this has happened to me, it hurts like hell!)

My dad once did a masonry job for a guy who had a (hope I remember
this right) Wright Cyclone 1934 vintage he offered to sell for $200
(1978 dollars).

He said the thing was a piece of art, but he had no use for it.

'rents -- oy!

Well, they can still be got pretty cheap. Rebuiding is also reasonable
for a lot of round engines. Some are at a premium, like the Warners, for
instance, but the rest are still pretty cheap and practiacal A Cyclone
would be pretty thirsty though. Mine is a little one. A Le Blond. 265
c.i. The later ones had enclosed valve gear lubed by engine oil. Nice
little engine. Should make the airplane go and sound, very well.

BTW, the guy who claimed the urpcup was the most efficent is obviously
unaware of the LeBond powered Bellanca Junior, which did about 100 knots
on about 70 HP, Rearwins also used this engine and topped 85 knots with
it. The 90 HP Rearwin Sportster would cruise at 95 knots plus, and all
this years before the Ercoupe

bertie

It's amazing how such efficiencies were wrung from such meager HP.

Use the same design, reduce the weight with more lightweight
materials, and perhaps..?

Dan