Light weight low cost four stroke engines, good Rotax replacements.

For $1750, you can have a decent experimental A-65-8F, which type of
engine has flown more than one aircraft for over 1000 hours. AND has
gobs of premade accessories AND actually puts out 65 horsepower AND
doesn't require "fudging" to make weight, like nearly all auto engine
conversions, do.

Drew

mastic wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored

I thought this would be interesting for people on this group.

The Geo/Suzuki one litre engine weighs a little more than a Rotax
582, it produces 62 HP normally aspirated but with a better, flatter
torque curve.
Both bolt on gearbox and cog belt redrives and all other aircraft
conversion parts are available for very reasonable cost. Turbo
versions are available also. Gearbox type redrives for around US$1750-
The Geo/Suzuki engine uses about half the fuel that the two stroke
engines use.
The 1.3 litre four cylinder Suzuki engine beats the Rotax 912 in
power and weight, again both gearbox and belt type redrives are
available.
All those advantages plus flying engines with the hours up to prove
them and last but not lease, far, far cheaper than a Rotax.
There is a Yahoo group about these fantastic little engines used in
aircraft, it is a very active and helpful group.
One person on the group has over 1000 hours on one installation.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored

wrote

For $1750, you can have a decent experimental A-65-8F

Yeah, where?
--
Jim in NC

I'd like to find one of those too!!!!!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

wrote

For $1750, you can have a decent experimental A-65-8F

Yeah, where?
--
Jim in NC

"mastic" donttry@thisaddress wrote in message
...
Light weight low cost four stroke engines, good Rotax replacements.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored


Are you done already, spamming every newsgroups on Usenet and Yahoo?!?

mastic wrote:
Light weight low cost four stroke engines, good Rotax replacements.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored

I thought this would be interesting for people on this group.

The Geo/Suzuki one litre engine weighs a little more than a Rotax
582, it produces 62 HP normally aspirated but with a better, flatter
torque curve.
Both bolt on gearbox and cog belt redrives and all other aircraft
conversion parts are available for very reasonable cost. Turbo
versions are available also. Gearbox type redrives for around US$1750-
The Geo/Suzuki engine uses about half the fuel that the two stroke
engines use.
The 1.3 litre four cylinder Suzuki engine beats the Rotax 912 in
power and weight, again both gearbox and belt type redrives are
available.
All those advantages plus flying engines with the hours up to prove
them and last but not lease, far, far cheaper than a Rotax.
There is a Yahoo group about these fantastic little engines used in
aircraft, it is a very active and helpful group.
One person on the group has over 1000 hours on one installation.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored



Pretty funny, the only thing not tolerated on your Yahoo group is spam,
but that does not seem to bother you when it come to spamming other
groups. I really doubt you will read this as you also have a phony
email and return address.

I've purchased three halfway decent A-65s for an average of $1500,
each, on Barnstormers, within the last six months. One of them was
"good to go" as an experimental, and two of them would require about
$4000 to make them good, serviceable CERTIFIED with complete logbooks
aircraft engines.

The fact that some people lack the ability to scrounge, and keep eyes
open and cash ready, doesn't mean that the rest of us cannot.

The cost of the auto conversions, especially the "kits" just doesn't
justify the risk involved. If they were truly less expensive, I'd be
all over them. Unfortunately, they cost about the same, or more, than
buying more proven aircraft power.

Well sure I can find an engine for 1500 if I am able to put another
4000-5000 into it. I kinda had the impression of an Cont. 65 for the first
number . I've seen them ready to put on a plane for 3000-3500. Finding one
ready to go for about 1500 would be a good scrounge!!

I am waiting to get the Engine out of my wife's Geo to use on a Jenny. I
always tell her if she sees a wreck coming to please make sure she points my
airplane engine in a good direction!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
wrote in message
oups.com...
I've purchased three halfway decent A-65s for an average of $1500,
each, on Barnstormers, within the last six months. One of them was
"good to go" as an experimental, and two of them would require about
$4000 to make them good, serviceable CERTIFIED with complete logbooks
aircraft engines.

The fact that some people lack the ability to scrounge, and keep eyes
open and cash ready, doesn't mean that the rest of us cannot.

The cost of the auto conversions, especially the "kits" just doesn't
justify the risk involved. If they were truly less expensive, I'd be
all over them. Unfortunately, they cost about the same, or more, than
buying more proven aircraft power.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:13:38 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote:

wrote:

I've purchased three halfway decent A-65s for an average of $1500,
each, on Barnstormers, within the last six months. One of them was
"good to go" as an experimental, and two of them would require about
$4000 to make them good, serviceable CERTIFIED with complete logbooks
aircraft engines.

What was it about the engines that made them experimental?
Had they been modified?

An engine is "experimental" if the data plate is removed or it is
repaired by a non-certified facility and/or has no log-book.
If it still has the data plate it can be returned to certified status
with a complete "certified" overhaul, if I remember correctly.
T o d d P a t t i s t
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

On 2005-06-30 10:55:42 -0400, Richard Riley said:

Locally, a Cozy Mk 4 builder got hit with a property tax assessment on
the airplane of something like $250,000.

I remember hearing about that guy. What ever happened with that?

California is a weird place. I got a copy of one of my sports car mags
and it has a fawning article about a developer who keeps his Ferraris
in a hangar at SMO -- federally subsidized, it's cheaper than any other
commercial real estate in SoCal.

It's nice to know that we all pay fuel and other taxes so that this
jerk has a place to tow his sports cars to when they break down.
--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

Richard,

That's a really great idea...

John



On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:10:48 -0700, Richard Riley
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:39:41 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote:
:
o assessors really go out to your airport and look at data
lates on engines? I'd just say it was a homebuilt and let
:them think gray tape, baling wire and old sheets for fabric
:covering :-)

The assessor doesn't - but the DAR does when he does the certification
on the plane to begin with.

He lists the engine on your certification, along with your name and
address, and the N number.

When you rent a hangar you have to have an N number for them to put on
the lease. The county goes through the leases, looks up all the N
numbers, sees what kinds of airplanes are in which hangars, takes a
stab at a value and sends an annual bill for 1% to the owner.

So it's wise to not only list the engine as an "exp-75" but to list
the plane as a "Smith Runabout." If you list the plane as a Lancair
IV-P, and the engine as a Continental TSIO-550, you're guaranteed to
owe the county about $4k per year. If it's something they've never
heard of, you have a shot.

Of course, there's nothing to stop you from listing your Lancair IV-P
as a Hummelbird, or an Air Camper, or Drifter. Just something to
think about.