Non certified engines.

Okay, I don't know diddly; I've just caught the airplane bug. So, I'm
asking...

My buddy went out and spent multi tens of thousands of dollars on an
airplane engine. Lycoming, I think it was. Seems kinda pricy, but I
understand that most of that cost is testing, no iron.

I note that there was a lot of talk in the newsgroup and some books out
on Amazon.com on using non-certified engines.

How wise is that? The FAA really allows that, huh? If I had a noose in a
tree, and called it an experimental airplane, would the FAA let me fly
it? Probably not if the nose was over a populated area, huh? Just wondering.

VW engines are mentioned, I suspect because water cooled engines would
be too heavy for small airplanes, and it would introduce additional
cooling failure modes.

I guess I'm not smart enough to even know what questions to ask. So,
please discuss engines, so I can read the thread.

Is there a FAQ for this newsgroup?

"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
. ..
Okay, I don't know diddly; I've just caught the airplane bug. So, I'm
asking...
.......
I note that there was a lot of talk in the newsgroup and some books out on
Amazon.com on using non-certified engines.

How wise is that? The FAA really allows that, huh? If I had a noose in a
tree, and called it an experimental airplane, would the FAA let me fly it?
Probably not if the nose was over a populated area, huh? Just wondering.

supposedly if you can prove its flight characteristics, and prove that the
materials used wont fail under anticipated stresses, yeah, you could fly it.

go to a big airshow and look at some of the nightmares they gave the OK to
fly. amazing. wings made mostly out of sticks 3/8x3/8? CLOTH wings?

and yes, I think that there are some restrictions on some planes, engines
and otherwise. someone can pipe up that has looked at the rules lately

VW engines are mentioned, I suspect because water cooled engines would be
too heavy for small airplanes, and it would introduce additional cooling
failure modes.

ummm curtis jenny? used a water cooled ford engine.

but there are benefits to air cooled. less parts, less weight, less failure
modes. you have to be a bit fussier with them though.

before there were certified engines for planes, what did you think they
used?

Tater Schuld wrote:
"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
. ..

Okay, I don't know diddly; I've just caught the airplane bug. So, I'm
asking...

......

I note that there was a lot of talk in the newsgroup and some books out on
Amazon.com on using non-certified engines.

How wise is that? The FAA really allows that, huh? If I had a noose in a
tree, and called it an experimental airplane, would the FAA let me fly it?
Probably not if the nose was over a populated area, huh? Just wondering.


supposedly if you can prove its flight characteristics, and prove that the
materials used wont fail under anticipated stresses, yeah, you could fly it.

go to a big airshow and look at some of the nightmares they gave the OK to
fly. amazing. wings made mostly out of sticks 3/8x3/8? CLOTH wings?

Cloth wing worked for the Wright Brothers. But then, there wasn't an FAA
there to stop the WBs from homebuilding. :-) I'm half worried about
building something dangerous, and half worried about building something
safe that I can't convince the govmint to let me fly. :-)

and yes, I think that there are some restrictions on some planes, engines
and otherwise. someone can pipe up that has looked at the rules lately


VW engines are mentioned, I suspect because water cooled engines would be
too heavy for small airplanes, and it would introduce additional cooling
failure modes.


ummm curtis jenny? used a water cooled ford engine.

So, I shouldn't rule out water cooled engines? Maybe I should look for a
totaled Chevy Geo in the junkyard? Maybe there is a size (horsepower)
break at which water cooled makes more sense than air cooled? I'm asking.

but there are benefits to air cooled. less parts, less weight, less failure
modes. you have to be a bit fussier with them though.

The biggest problem seems to be using an automobile crankshaft, which is
designed for pure torque, as the structural member for transmitting the
thrust force to the airplane body.

before there were certified engines for planes, what did you think they
used?

Engines that killed people more often than they should have, I suppose.
What's your opinion? Is the cost of a certified engine worth the risk?

How wise is that? The FAA really allows that, huh? If I had a noose in a
tree, and called it an experimental airplane, would the FAA let me fly
it? Probably not if the nose was over a populated area, huh? Just
wondering.


supposedly if you can prove its flight characteristics, and prove that
the materials used wont fail under anticipated stresses, yeah, you could
fly it.

Neither the FAA, the gummint, nor we really care if you build an airplane
out of concrete and power it with a string of firecrackers. Precautions are
taken to limit exposure of innocent parties, however - so you may find
yourself with a test area restricted to the Mojave desert, 20 miles from any
known habitation.

You may, if you wish, kill yourself by attempting to fly anything you like.
Have a ball!

Rich "ZPG" S.

("Rich S." wrote)
Neither the FAA, the gummint, nor we really care if you build an airplane
out of concrete and power it with a string of firecrackers.


Test Flights in the Mojave:

Flight #1. Ladyfingers are nice but Black Cats would be better...

Flight #2. Black Cats are good but Cherry bombs would be better...

Flight #3. Cherry bombs are good but M-80's would be better...

Flight #4. M-80's are good but dynamite would be better...


Montblack
How many Black Cats to power that flying brick? Yup, a brick. g

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
Test Flights in the Mojave:

Flight #1. Ladyfingers are nice but Black Cats would be better...

Flight #2. Black Cats are good but Cherry bombs would be better...

Flight #3. Cherry bombs are good but M-80's would be better...

Flight #4. M-80's are good but dynamite would be better...

A vivid reminder of the difference between "preignition" and "detonation".


Rich S.

Montblack wrote:
("Rich S." wrote)

Neither the FAA, the gummint, nor we really care if you build an
airplane out of concrete and power it with a string of firecrackers.



Test Flights in the Mojave:

Flight #1. Ladyfingers are nice but Black Cats would be better...

Flight #2. Black Cats are good but Cherry bombs would be better...

Flight #3. Cherry bombs are good but M-80's would be better...

Flight #4. M-80's are good but dynamite would be better...


Montblack
How many Black Cats to power that flying brick? Yup, a brick. g

The Orion few (or would have flown) off the shockwave of nukes... ;o)
It was basically a 10 story high bulding shaped like a round nose bullet.

Tony

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:25:16 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
wrote:



ummm curtis jenny? used a water cooled ford engine.

the jenny used an OX-5 engine surely?

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:25:16 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
wrote:



ummm curtis jenny? used a water cooled ford engine.

the jenny used an OX-5 engine surely?

I could be wrong. the only Curtis jenny I saw was in the bell museum at
Niagara Falls being restored. It had a water radiator that looked automotive
with a hole made in it. I *thought* I saw a ford logo on it but I could be
mistaken.

"Tater Schuld" wrote in message
...

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:25:16 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
wrote:



ummm curtis jenny? used a water cooled ford engine.

the jenny used an OX-5 engine surely?

I could be wrong. the only Curtis jenny I saw was in the bell museum at
Niagara Falls being restored. It had a water radiator that looked
automotive with a hole made in it. I *thought* I saw a ford logo on it but
I could be mistaken.

You were mistaken. Yes, it has a radiator with a tank on the top. I guess
that looks "automotive." Most aircraft used water cooled engines until
they got enough cooling fins on the cylinders and the airplanes got fast
enough to make the air cooling work reasonably well, in the 1920's. Then
they quickly switched over to air cooling, with a few exceptions that hung
on through WWII, such as the Merlin used in the P-51 and the Allison used in
the P-38 and P-40.

The WWI era Hall Scott was an all aluminum water cooled engine with four
valves per cylinder for better breathing. Unfortunately they were not very
reliable and the airplane manufacturers preferred the inexpensive, readily
available Curtiss OX-5 which put out 90 solid horsepower at only 450 pounds
and there were thousands of them available after the war because Curtiss put
them into every JN-2 "Jenny" ever built. Most of the low cost biplanes
built prior to the stockmarket crash of 1929 used the OX-5 engine because of
price and availability. The new radial engines that were coming out in the
twenties, such as the lovely Wright that Lindbergh used to fly to France,
cost more than the entire OX-5 powered Waco 10. :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )