Reducing the Accident Rate

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:27:38 -0400, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:

So why dont' we see lots of homebuilts eliminating separate cylinders?
There are some great minds in the homebuilt community and minimal FAA
regulation.

Are you kidding Richard? There are hundreds and hundreds of
homebuilts flying with Chevy V-6's, Ford V-6's, Subaru fours and sixes
and numerous other types of auto conversions. There must be at least
six companies producing firewall forward "turnkey" engines.

Corky Scott

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
So why dont' we see lots of homebuilts eliminating separate cylinders?

They do. Look at Rotax. It is essentially the standard for little
(Cub size and down) airplanes.

Also consider the Leeza Air-Cam. It is a professionally designed
airframe, purpose built as a camera platform twin for flight over
terrain that offered few viable forced landing options. Engine cost
wasn't really an issue. So what top-of-the-line certfied engines were
used? Right, none. They used Rotax.

Michael

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
Just a quick look with Yahoo turned up the Morane Renault, Zoche, and Jabiru engines
- all new designs with separate cylinders.

A Jabiru is an all-new design? Looks loke a Lycoming shrunk to take
advantage of better metallurgy. Besides, it's a certified engine in
Australia, and I bet they have their own version of the FAA modeled
largely on ours.

I've been hearing about Zoche for years - long before I ever heard of
Thielert. Thielert now has actual production engines on actual
production aircraft. How about Zoche?

In general, separate cylinders are advantageous for air-cooled engines and blocks are
preferred for water-cooled designs, but this is not a universal rule.

I don't agree that it's a rule at all. If it were, we would see
separate cylinders SOMEWHERE outside aviation. And no, engines of
less than 4 cylinders don't count.

Michael