Engines-Archive.digest.vol-aa

September 12, 1999 - August 10, 2000



      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Sep 12, 1999
Subject: Welcome to the New Engines-List Email List at Matronics!
Welcome to the New Engines-List Email List at Matronics! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Admin -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Sep 12, 1999
Subject: Two MORE Email Lists at Matronics...
Dear Listers, At the request of a couple of members, I have added two more Email Lists to the Servers here at Matronics. These include: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Aircraft Avionics related topics such as Radios, GPSs, VSIs, DMEs, etc. engines-list(at)matronics.com Aircraft Engine related topics such as Lycomings, Auto conversions, etc. As usual, the new lists have full archive searching and browsing capabilities. You may subscribe to the new lists by using the Web-Based subscription form at the following URL: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Admin. -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 1999
From: Paul Humphries <paul.humphries1(at)virgin.net>
Subject: Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines
Has anyone tried using BMW motorcycle engines in ultralight aircraft ? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines
Date: Sep 17, 1999
Subject: Engines-List: Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines > > Has anyone tried using BMW motorcycle engines in ultralight aircraft ? I recall a number of years ago, a person built a ducted fan aircraft and flew it at least once that I am aware of, but have not seen it since. It was not an ultralight. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com>
Subject: Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines
Date: Sep 17, 1999
> > > Has anyone tried using BMW motorcycle engines in ultralight aircraft ? I've definitely seen pictures of such an installation, but I can't remember where. Keep looking! Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joe Bucher" <tongarra(at)tpgi.com.au>
Subject: Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines
Date: Sep 18, 1999
> Has anyone tried using BMW motorcycle engines in ultralight aircraft ? Yes of course, Paul My Zenair CH 701 is being dragged through space by a BMW K100 motorcycle engine since 20/8/99, 8 hours so far. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert Day" <robday(at)GTE.NET>
Subject: Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines
Date: Sep 18, 1999
What is the power output of a K100 engine? (HP) Rob Day ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 1999
From: Paul Humphries <paul.humphries1(at)virgin.net>
Subject: Re: BMW engines
> From: "Joe Bucher" <tongarra(at)tpgi.com.au> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines > > > > Has anyone tried using BMW motorcycle engines in ultralight aircraft ? > > Yes of course, Paul > My Zenair CH 701 is being dragged through space by a BMW K100 motorcycle > engine since 20/8/99, 8 hours so far. Hi Joe. Great to hear you have proved that the engine works in a CH701 because this is the same aircraft for which I already have the plans although haven't yet stated construction. I also have the conversion drawings for using a BMW aircooled boxer engine but hadn't thought about the K series engines. I have spent a lot of time recently working on a friends K1100LT (ex police bike) and love the quality compared to even the best of Jap engines. What was needed to convert for use in an aircraft ?. The boxer conversion is very easy and uses a Rotax 'C' type gearbox. Did you build the CH701 with the intention of installing the K engine or has it flown previously with any other engine ? Paul Humphries, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joe Bucher" <tongarra(at)tpgi.com.au>
Subject: Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines
Date: Sep 19, 1999
> > What is the power output of a K100 engine? (HP) > > > Rob Day 90 hp fuel injected mine is running on a carby for simplicity at about 80 hp. Joe ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 1999
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Subject: Re: BMW motorcyc;e engines
What is the all-up wet weight, eg, with everything that it takes to run? Joe Bucher wrote: > > > > > What is the power output of a K100 engine? (HP) > > > > > > Rob Day > > 90 hp fuel injected > mine is running on a carby for simplicity at about 80 hp. > > Joe > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joe Bucher" <tongarra(at)tpgi.com.au>
Subject: Re: BMW engines
Date: Sep 19, 1999
----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Bucher <tongarra(at)tpgi.com.au> Sent: Sunday, 19 September 1999 7:56 Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: BMW engines > > > Hi Joe. > > > > Great to hear you have proved that the engine works in a CH701 because > > this is the same aircraft for which I already have the plans although > > haven't yet stated construction. I also have the conversion drawings for > > using a BMW aircooled boxer engine but hadn't thought about the K series > > engines. I have spent a lot of time recently working on a friends > > K1100LT (ex police bike) and love the quality compared to even the best > > of Jap engines. What was needed to convert for use in an aircraft ?. The > > boxer conversion is very easy and uses a Rotax 'C' type gearbox. Did you > > build the CH701 with the intention of installing the K engine or has it > > flown previously with any other engine ? > > > > Paul Humphries, > > Hi Paul > My CH 701 was powered by a Kavasaki 1000 with varies problems before I > bought it ( fire wall back ). Yes I love the engineering specially the K > engine, runs extremely smooth, quiet unlike the R series. I run a 2.67 belt > redrive and I certainly can match it with the Rotax 912, ( 81,5kts GPS at > 6600rpm 21deg 3000ft ) > Joe > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com>
Subject: Dynacam
Date: Sep 22, 1999
Folks, Anyone really looked the 200HP Dynacam engine? (http://www.dynacam.com) I have not yet been able to make the trek to Oshkosh or Sun-n-Fun, so I have not seen their booth or demonstrations... I know that they are now in production... did they have any sort of demonstrator plane built? I was thinking that this engine was particularly well suited to the Zenith STOL CH-801, or any other STOL requiring about 200 HP... I imagine that the low end torque would work well at swing a pretty powerful prop for even better takeoff performance than a Lycoming... does this make sense? Thanks for any information you might have... Steve ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven J. Devine, President, Consultant TZOGON Enterprises Incorporated steve@tzogon.com HAM Tech lic: N1YZJ http://www.tzogon.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 22, 1999
From: Dan Exstrom <exstromb(at)onlinemac.com>
Subject: Re: Dynacam
> >Folks, > >Anyone really looked the 200HP Dynacam engine? (http://www.dynacam.com) >.... >Thanks for any information you might have... > Steve, The Dynacam caught my eye last year and I've checked on it from time to time. Interesting engine, but the expected price (~$25K US) is a bit high (for me), and they have had problems keeping the price down at that level due to some sub-contracting issues. I understand that they have gone in-house on alot of the manu. to insure quality and price controls. The engine does hold great potential in the 200hp range. FWIW Dan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Dynacam
Date: Sep 22, 1999
Steve, I go to OSH every year where I conduct engine related seminars. I have only seen the Dynacam engine once, about 8-10 yrs ago, in the back of a pickup truck, on a makeshift engine stand. It was not running. That's it. Archie > Anyone really looked the 200HP Dynacam engine? (http://www.dynacam.com) > I have not yet been able to make the trek to Oshkosh or Sun-n-Fun, so I > have not seen their booth or demonstrations... I know that they are now > in production... did they have any sort of demonstrator plane built? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 26, 1999
From: Dennis Douglas <ddouglas(at)coastside.net>
Subject: Facet Fuel Pump Info
Hey Builders! I have some information about the Facet fuel pumps used to transfer fuel in our airplanes. To support the Pillar Point Avionics "Smart Switch" Fuel Pump Controller, we have tested threee different models of Facet pump: the 40171, the 40105, and the 40106. The differences fall into two distinct categories that relate to pump-off forward and reverse leakage flows. Physically, the 40105 and 40 The Facet 40171 pump is the type sold by Stoddard-Hamilton Aircraft , Inc. (360-495-8533) to serve as a transfer pump for transferring fuel from the auxiliary tanks to the main tanks. The 40171 costs about $54 each. The Facet 40105 and 40106 are sold by numerous suppliers, including Aircraft Spruce and Specialties (800-824-1930 (west); 800-831-2949 (east)), Chief Aircraft (800-447-3408), Wicks (800-221-9425) and others and typically used in the Zenith and other aircraft for transferring fuel from an aux tank to a header tank. The 40105/6 pumps cost about $28 to $32 each. Physically, the 40105 and 40106 are identical. Both Chief Aircraft and Aircraft Spruce picture these pumps in their catalogs. The 40171 looks slightly different than the 40105 / 40106 models in that the inlet and outlet ends of the pump are about 1/4 inch longer than the 40105 / 40106 to accommodate the check and foot valves. (I haven't found any pictures of the 40171.) Functionally, there is a world of difference between the 40171 and the 40105 / 40106. All three model pumps have a "lift" capability and can draw fuel from at least 3-feet. All three move the fuel at about 0.5 gal/min, or about 30 gal/h when they are operating. In the "OFF" state, however, the differences between the pumps become more obvious. At a 30-inch head pressure, the 40105 and 40106 pumps have a forward "leak" rate or drain rate of about 15 gal/h. These pumps thus flow freely in the forward direction at about one-hald the pumping rate.... In the reverse direction, the 40105 and 40106 drain backwards at between 0.05 ga/h to about 0.25 gal/hr, with a mean value over a dozen tests with four different pumps of about 0.1 gal/h. (As a point of reference, 0.1 gal/h is about one drop per second). Compare these numbers to the 40171 pump, which showed no detectable leakage in the "OFF" state in either the forward or reverse directions over several hours. The utilization implications are pretty clear: If your "from" tank is higher that the "to" tank, you need the 40171 pump to prevent your "from" fuel from draining into your "to" tank. If your "from" and "to" tanks are at about the same level, you should still use the 40171 pump to prevent an exchange of fuel. If your "from" tank is lower than your "to" tank, you can use any of the pumps described, but if you use the 40105 or 40106, you should use a check valve on the outlet side of the pump to present your "to" tank from draining back into your "from" tank. Wicks lists a check valve at about $24, so cost-wise the 40171 may represent a better bargin because it has the checks built into them.... Pillar Point Avionics offers fuel pump controllers for all of these pumps. For the 40171 pump, PPAv provides the XFR-12-2-5F model controller; for the 40105 and 40106 pumps, PPAv provides the XFR-12-2-5G model controller. We developed the "G" model when we found that the operating characteristics of the 40105 and 40106 were just different enough from the 40171 to make control of those pumps with the "F"-model Smart Switch less reliable than we wanted. If you have a PPAv controller and are building a GlaStar or another airplane that uses the 40171 pump(s), the original production "F" model will be just fine. If you have the 40105 or 40106 pumps, you will need the "G" model controller. If you need the "G" model controller and have NOT been contacted by PPAv, then please contact me by email at mailto:ddouglas(at)ppavionics.com or by fax (650-726-9567) or by telephone (650-740-1516). You can identify the model by looking at the mounting tab on the pump. One side of the mounting slot will be stamped "40" and the other side will be stamped "105", 106" or "171". If you have a different model pump and want to use the PPAv Smart Switch Fuel Pump Controller to reduce your aux fuel management workload, please contact us. You can read about the PPAv Controller at http://www.ppavionics.com Dennis Douglas Pillar Point Avionics, Inc. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BB Diversified <bbds(at)means.net>
Subject: 2.5L Suburu
Date: Oct 14, 1999
Is there anybody out there converting (or that has converted) the 2.5 Suburu?? I have a 1996 version with very few miles on it and am getting it ready to run in the "stock" configuration with a Ross gearbox and (most likely) a Warp Drive prop. Don't have the prop yet. Plan to run it stock first so I have a starting point, then begin removing stuff not needed in the harness, etc. and see if it still runs every once in a while... seems logical but maybe a waste of time?? Any hints on where to attach engine mounts? Building the mount is my next step.. I have a pretty good idea how I think I'll do it, but welcome suggestions. Comments on stock ignition and/or fuel injection vs. aftermarket will be welcome. At Oshkosh this year I talked to the guys from Canada that convert Suburus--they badmouthed the 2.5L ("Have you ever looked inside THAT THING???"... yes, I have and it looks pretty stout to me..). The guy was not much interested in being specific. Anybody know a reason for this attitude besides that they would like to sell something rather than see someone "roll their own"? It will go in a Champ that has been modified enuf that it will be Experimental. I also have an RV-3A and would love to have something besides a Lyc there if this works out. Any input would be appreciated. If there is someone within RV-3 distance that is willing to show off their conversion, I'd be much obliged. Johnny Johnson Northern Minnesota ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: 2.5L Suburu
Date: Oct 14, 1999
BTW, it is spelled: SUBARU Try Jan Eggenfellner at eaainc(at)aol.com . He does these for a living. Tell him the great Archie sent you. > > Is there anybody out there converting (or that has converted) the 2.5 > Suburu?? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 27, 1999
From: Vaso Bovan <Vaso_Bovan(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Proposed IO-320 or IO-360 Engine
I'm building a Glastar. I have to make a decision soon about buying/preparing an engine. I'm looking for comments from builders who are familiar with the issues. Fee free to comment on anything in this posting. Disposing of alternatives engines: Diesels: Promising but large-scale production at least two years out. LOM M332B: Interesting but underpowered, not true 160hp. Slow/unresponsive factory/rep. Best suited to tandem. DynaCAM: Interesting, but a year before full scale production. Unproven Subaru: Interesting, but need to see a few flying installations Franklin: Interesting but mounting is problematic in Glastar. Lower power/weight ratio Wankel: Interesting, but unproven. Systems problematic and would require much development/tinkering. Continental IO-360: Interesting, but mounting is seriously problematic. That leaves the ubiquitous Lycomings: I'm looking to get 180hp-210hp. In non-fuel-injected engines, Stoddard-Hamilton sells the O-360-A1A/AIF6/A4F, and the O-320-D1F. I think I want fuel injection and electronic ignition. Lycon tells me it is easy and safe to get 195hp from the O-360 or 235hp from the O-360 via porting & polishing, 10:1 pistons, mass balancing and flow balancing. I'm told cold air induction (Skydynamics Maxi-Sump) and tuned (eg Flow Power Systems) exhaust add up to another effective 10hp-20hp. Horsepower gains via fuel injection and electronic ignition are minor, but installation is defensible. Apart from horsepower increases, weight reductions via lightweight alternator and starter, Maxi-Sump, etc reduce nose weight and improve power/weight ratio. Comments ? Some decisions: 1) (I)O-360 or (I)-320 ? Is it better to go with an IO-320 modded to ~190hp, or to an IO-360- modded to ~210hp ? A -320 solution appears to be 11-25lb lighter so the power/weight ratio of these options is reasonably comparable, but apparently a 360 is more robust to start with and can take horsepower mods more reliably and still meet 2000hrs TBO. Comments ?. 2) Buy new fuel-injected version of engines or buy carburetted version and convert to FI ? This may be a no-brainer - Lycoming appears to overcharge for FI versions of similar engines. Comments ? 3) Buy new engine, mid-time, or core ? Apparently buying a remanufactured engine from Lycoming actually costs more than buying a new engine at OEM prices because a core has to be submitted to Lycoming. 4) What about the long-anticipated XP-360 ? Apparently the deal between XP Industries and Superior fell apart, so the XP-360 will be marketed through Matittuck "in a few months." Comments ? 4) Bendix or Airflow Performance fuel injection ? I'm told the Airflow Performance (API) unit is better designed and build and perhaps gives slightly better horsepower and is slightly easier to hot start. However, I'm told the Airflow units is less familiar to A&Ps so might be difficult to repair in her field. Also, I'm told API unit leaks pressurized fuel into the cylinders after shutdown. Comments ? 5) Electronic Ignition ? Lightspeed Laser ? Rose ? Comments on these options ? 6) 10:1 pistons ? Lycon suggests 10:1 pistons as substituted for stock Lycoming 8.5:1. Lycon suggests this compression ratio is safe and effective, but will install ground-down 9:1 pistons if requested. Comment ? Any starting or vibration or reliability problems on 100 fuel with these pistons ? Is 93 mogas totally out of the question with these high compression pistons ? 7) Porting & Polishing ? Both Lycon and Aero Power say P&P is effective, but I don't understand - if this is a "free" power boost - why Lycoming doesn't already do it. 8) Mass balancing ? There is an article that says mass balancing is futile, and if material is removed, mass balancing is decreases reliability. On the other hand, shops like Lycon swear my very tight-tolerance mass balancing. Comments ? 9) Flow balancing and Gamijectors ? Most shops recommend air/fuel flow balancing, but say Gamijectors are not significantly effective in Lycomings. Comments ? 10) Tuned exhaust ? Power Flow Systems claimed an eyebrow-raising 10-15% increase in effective power output from a Lycoming O-360. Lycon says they verified this power increase on their test cell. The PFS exhaust is expensive $2K+. Does anyone else make tuned exhausts with similar verified (?) claims ? Comments ? 11) Maxi-Sump ? SkyDynamics sells a low-weight (magnesium) sump and cold air induction system clat claims to reduce weight by 10lb+, and increase horsepower on an IO-360. Cost is $2K+. Is this a realistic add-on ? 12) Pre-Oiler ? Is it worthwhile to add a pre-oiler system, to avoid engine start friction ? 13) Oil Cooler ? Is one brand/configuration significantly better/cheaper than another ? 14) Remote Oil filter ? Is Airwolf, or B&C, or another other brand significantly better/cheaper/more convenient ? 15) The Stallion newsletter strongly recommends a high-efficiency fuel filter for fuel-injected engines. Is any particular brand better ? 16) Starter: Any comments/cautions about B&C, SkyTek, or others ? 17) Alternator ? B&C best ? -Vaso Bovan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: commentary- Vaso Bovan message-
Date: Oct 27, 1999
I build piston racing engines,Nascar,Short track, Drags, Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: commentary- Vaso Bovan message-
Date: Oct 27, 1999
----- Original Message ----- From: Archie <archie97(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:37 PM Subject: Engines-List: commentary- Vaso Bovan message- > > I build piston racing engines,Nascar,Short track, Drags, Aircraft OOPS, looks like my commentary got lost------- Will re-send momentarily archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: commentary- Vaso Bovan message-
Date: Oct 27, 1999
----- Original Message ----- From: Archie <archie97(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:37 PM Subject: commentary- Vaso Bovan message- > I build piston racing engines,Nascar,Short track, Drags, Aircraft > . > Would like to comment on engines posting by Vaso Bovan. > Wankel: How many engines of 80 cu.in. displacement > produce an easy 160-210 hp? > Highest time engine is owned by Tracy Crook's > RV-4.(800+) which was removed from a used > car and run. Recently disassembled out of > curiosity, showed very little wear. > 71175.606(at)compuserve.com > XP360: Outrageous price for an engine that still > incorporates 60yr. old technology. > Ignition: Dual electronics without a doubt. Just check the > recommended spark plug gap on a mag system. > Mags cannot fire a large gap. Check your auto > ignition. We did away with mags in racing over > 30 years ago. Do you know the REAL reason > for an impulse coupling? > Porting & Polishing: I have written papers on this. No room > here to elaborate. Suffice it to say, if done properly, > is of definite value. Many people out there that merely > "shine them up" indiscriminately. This cannot be done > properly without mathematical computation and a flow > bench. (Many hours of work.) > Mass balancing: Again, have written papers on this, and is > too involved to comment here. Most factory balancing > may be "close enough" but a precision balance is of > definite value. I will not build an engine without performing > this operation. > Flow balancing: This term means that the cylinder ports are > equalized in flow,(not necessarily ported/welded to > improve flow for a given displacement engine. The > highest flow ports are used as a standard, and the rest > are enlarged to match. This has some value, but can > also reduce power if not performed with all component > parts from the intake to the complete exhaust system. > Tuned exhaust: Perhaps one of the most misunderstood areas of > engine building. Also, one of the most effective gains in > "bolt on" performance if the design is chosen correctly > for the application. > I can comment on much more, but would end up consuming this > site's capacity. > Archie > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu>
Subject: Engine info needed
Date: Nov 03, 1999
I am looking for an engine for my homebuilt. I need something in the 200 to 260 hp range. Does anybody have engine specs for Franklin, Lycoming and Continental handy. I would like to find a book or similar that contained engines weights, dimensions, etc to help guide my engine selection. Thanks in advance. Vince Frazier 3965 Caborn Road Mount Vernon, IN 47620 812-985-7309 University of Southern Indiana 812-464-1839 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com>
Subject: Torque Converters
Date: Nov 03, 1999
I've been thinking about doing a conversion similar to Steve Wittman's Olds conversion, in which the engine is inverted and drives the prop directly--no redrive. Steve uses a manual transmission bellhousing to support a propshaft and bearing, so that the crankshaft is isolated from non-torsional prop loads. What if I use a torque converter to also isolate the crank from prop torsional loads? The main purpose of the torque converter would be to reduce the chance that torsional harmonics would lead to failure of either the prop or the crank. A secondary benefit would be that the alignment between the crankshaft bearings and the propshaft bearing would not be as critical as in Wittman's design. It would also probably allow me to use the stock transmission input shaft. The drawback, of course, would be cost and weight. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC RV-6 project ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com>
Subject: Engine info needed
Date: Nov 03, 1999
Vince: I can't answer the exact question you asked, but I will recommend a good book on aero engines. It's "Skyranch Engineering Manual," by John Schwaner. It's available from several sources, including Skyranch themselves. http://www.avweb.com/sponsors/skyranch/index.html Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Torque Converters
Date: Nov 03, 1999
> What if I use a torque converter to also isolate the crank from prop > torsional loads? Be careful with the converter, They are heavy, and unless you have a high torque engine, the fluid creates a slight imbalance at low rpm. Alignment (internal/external must be near perfect, else the torus may rub and make metal. There are commercial torque shock absorption units that may work better. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 1999
From: Vaso Bovan <Vaso_Bovan(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Zehrbach Engine Products ?
Zehrbach-LPE announced an electronic fuel injection system on one of the recent kit aviation magazines. When I inquired, they sent me a package of literature describing Zehrbach engines and components, including: IO-360-Z Improved Engine based on Lycoming Electronic Fuel Injection System LPE Battery (Lightweight gas recombination) Ceramic & Solid Lubricant Engine Performance Packages Ceramic "Black Magic" Engine Exhaust Coatings Liquid (Oil) Cylinder Head Cooling System My phone contact told me that Zehrbach has a long history of developing engine technology for military and NASA applications, but has had a low profile in commercial aviation engines. This is the first I've heard of this broad range of products. So, what's the story on Zehrbach ? Are these improvements well know and proven and cost effective ? -Vaso ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 1999
From: n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com>
Subject: Re: Zehrbach Engine Products ?
I'd be interested in hearing about oil cooled cylinder heads. I've always wondered why an air cooled engine couldn't have some type of liquid cooled heads. ---------- > From: Vaso Bovan <Vaso_Bovan(at)compuserve.com> > To: Engines List > Subject: Engines-List: Zehrbach Engine Products ? > Date: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 4:33 PM > > > Zehrbach-LPE announced an electronic fuel injection system on one of the > recent kit aviation magazines. When I inquired, they sent me a package of > literature describing Zehrbach engines and components, including: > > IO-360-Z Improved Engine based on Lycoming > Electronic Fuel Injection System > LPE Battery (Lightweight gas recombination) > Ceramic & Solid Lubricant Engine Performance Packages > Ceramic "Black Magic" Engine Exhaust Coatings > Liquid (Oil) Cylinder Head Cooling System > > My phone contact told me that Zehrbach has a long history of developing > engine technology for military and NASA applications, but has had a low > profile in commercial aviation engines. This is the first I've heard of > this broad range of products. > > So, what's the story on Zehrbach ? Are these improvements well know and > proven and cost effective ? > > -Vaso > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Nov 12, 1999
Subject: JPI vs. Matronics Settlement Reached...
Dear Listers, After seven months of negotiations, JP Instruments, Inc. and Matronics have reached a mutually agreeable settlement. As most of you are aware, in February of this year, JP Instruments, Inc. alleged that Matronics' use of the trademark "FuelScan" with its aircraft fuel management system infringed upon JP Instruments, Inc's trademark "Scanner" for engine temperature indicators. JP Instruments, Inc. requested that Matronics discontinue the use of the "FuelScan" mark. After considerable negotiations, we have come to an agreement whereby JP Instruments, Inc. will purchase the FuelScan trademark and, if necessary, assist in paying the cost of Matronics' adoption of a new trademark. Matronics will continue to sell and market its aircraft fuel management system under the FuelScan trademark until a phase-out period of up to one year is completed. This will allow Matronics time to sell out its current stock of units marked with the FuelScan trademark and to develop a new trademark. While negotiations have been a bit trying at times, I would like to say that I am satisfied with the outcome, and feel that JP Instruments, Inc. has treated Matronics and me fairly in this matter. Furthermore, I would encourage you to consider JP Instruments for your aircraft avionics in the future as they manufacture an excellent product line. Finally, I would like to thank everyone from around the world for their support and consideration in this matter. I was quite moved by the support - both financial and in the form of letters and comments - that builders and pilots provided me and my company during this time. I never felt alone during this period, and so very much appreciated the encouragement from thousands of my friends! Thank you so very much! Best regards, Matt Dralle President, Matronics -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Nov 18, 1999
Subject: For Sale - Lycoming O360-A4A - Excellent Cond.
For Sale: Lycoming O360-A4A ----------------- * 180 hp * 950 SMOH * Complete Logs * Solid Crank * Removed from wind-damaged Cherokee 180 * Starter ring * Cleaned and repainted All brand-new accessories include: * Slick mags (new, not rebuilt) * Fuel Pump (new, not rebuilt) * B&C Lightweight Starter (new) * Van's alternator kit, 60amp (new) * 8 plugs (new) * Ignition harness (new) * Ellison TBFI (new) * Valve covers and silicone gaskets (new) * Oil Filter (new) This is a really nice engine. It came from a wind-damaged Cherokee 180. When I received it (at 950 SMOH), I removed all of the old existing accessories, and replaced them with brand new as described above. I also completely cleaned the outside, stripped the old paint and repainted in the red as shown in the pictures. The price also includes the original carburetor, in good condition. Shown in the pictures, but not included in the price is the X-over exhaust and Woofter prop extension. The prop extension is available at extra cost ($275). I plan to keep the exhaust system. I might be willing to unbundle the Ellison TBFI if you're not interested in it. I have decided to sell this engine because I am planning to put a constant speed prop on my RV-4 and this engine has a solid crankshaft. Its a beautiful engine, though, and I really hate to give it up since I've put a lot of work into cleaning it up and upgrading the accessories. Please note that while it looks new, it actually has 950 hours since a first major overhaul. I have the complete engine logs including all of the maintenance history. I am in Livermore California which is on the West Coast near San Francisco. If you're local and can pick it up, that's great. If not, I would be willing to crate it up nicely and have it shipped by truck to you. I will pay for the crating, but you will be responsible for all shipping charges. Below are a number of photos I just took of the engine from various angles. The pictures do it justice. I can accept Visa or Mastercard for full or partial payment, although this will cost an additional 3% to cover my expense. Here are some current photos of the engine: http://www.matronics.com/mattsrv4/engine/engine1.jpg http://www.matronics.com/mattsrv4/engine/engine2.jpg http://www.matronics.com/mattsrv4/engine/engine3.jpg http://www.matronics.com/mattsrv4/engine/engine4.jpg http://www.matronics.com/mattsrv4/engine/engine5.jpg http://www.matronics.com/mattsrv4/engine/engine6.jpg Price: Asking $13,750 Please email with questions, or interest. Best regards, Matt Dralle RV-4 #1763 -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Nov 23, 1999
Subject: [Please Read] List Fund Raiser Continues; LOC #1 December
1st! Greetings Listers! Don't forget the 1999 List Fund Raiser is still in progress and there is still plenty of time to make a Contribution and assure yourself a place on on the first List Of Contributors (LOC)! I will post the first LOC on December 1st and it will detail everyone that has generously made a Contribution so far this year!! It costs a great deal to maintain the Email and Web server systems and high-speed Internet connection that provide the Email List services found here. I won't even mention the many, many hours I spend each week running the Lists, doing backups, handling subscription requests, and creating new email and web features and services such as the Archive Search Engine, and Archive Browser... Whoops; I think I just did! :-) This year's Fund Raiser started out pretty slow and I was starting to think that no one appreciated me anymore... ;-) But, in the last week or so things have really started to pick up! So if you haven't made a Contribution yet this year, why not join your email List friends and make a contribution today to support the continued operation of these Lists! There are two easy methods for making your Contribution: * Make a SSL Secure Web Contribution using your Visa or MasterCard, surf over to: http://www.matronics.com/contribution.html * Make a Contribution by check, send US Mail to: Matronics c/o Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore, CA 94551 I would like to sincerely thank everyone who has already made a Contribution so far this year! I greatly appreciate your generosity and support and want you to know that these Lists have been made possible directly by *YOU*! Thank you! Matt Dralle Your Email List Administrator -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 1999
From: "J. Davis" <jd(at)lri.stjosephs.london.on.ca>
Subject: Rotax 582UL parts for sale
Parting out Rotax 582: - rear cylinder ate a bottom-end rod bearing, most other parts fine. carbs, cylinders, head, stator, e-boxes, etc. Make an offer in the 50% retail range, will ship. Regards, J. | J. Davis | email: jd(at)uwo.ca | | SysMgr, research programmer | voice: (519) 646 6100 x64166 | | Lawson Research Institute | fax: (519) 646 6135 | | London, Ontario | lriweb.stjosephs.london.on.ca/~jd | I play the harmonica. The only way I can play is if I get my car going really fast, and stick it out the window. --- Steven Wright ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russ Jones" <russj1(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Your opinions wanted
Date: Nov 27, 1999
Hello all, I am currently building an EA-81 for installation in a Zodiac 601 What is the best solution for a fuel system on an EA-81? Carburetor or fuel injection? I am looking at dual Bings, which models are recommended? What other considerations should I look at? Any advice is greatly appreciated on or off list. Russ Jones ________________________________________________________________________________
From: StOrMiN3(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 28, 1999
Subject: Re: Engines needed
hello all, I am a vary new person to this list. I am just wondering if anyone has any 35hp and up engine for an ultralight for sale ? erik baxter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Dec 02, 1999
Subject: 1999 List of Contributors #1 and a Special Thank You Message!!
Dear Listers, I would like to personally thank each and everyone that has contributed this year to 1999 List Fund Raiser! As you can see from the list of names below, there were many, many generous people from the Lists this time around and I want everyone to know just how much your support has meant to me. The list of members below includes those that have contributed during this year's List Fund Raiser as well as those that have contributed throughout the year and also those that made a donation to my Legal Defense Fund earlier in the year that was sponsored my our own Bob Nuckolls of Aero Electric. I want everyone to know just how much it means to me to receive the type of financial support for these Lists that I have this year. As the Lists have grown so much over the last few years, so have the equipment costs as well as the monthly costs such as the Internet connectivity. Your generosity during the Fund Raiser and throughout the year, truly makes the continued operation, and more importantly, the continued upgrade and improvement of these aviation-related services directly possible. That is the bottom line. Please accept my most sincere appreciation of the amazing and, at times, overwhelming generosity of so many of you wonderful people! Thank you!! For those of you that didn't quite get your contribution in on time for this first List of Contributors - be it by check or by credit card - I will be posting a followup List of Contributors #2 for 1999 in a few weeks to make sure that I properly acknowledge each and everyone of the generous List members. One last time, the addresses to make a contribution are: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or Matt Dralle c/o Matronics PO Box 347 Livermore, CA 94551 Finally, thank you all so much for your support this year both in terms of the financial contribution but also in the form of the letters and moral support during what can only be categorized as a very stressful and unsettling time. And I think you know what I'm referring to... Your support and encouragement meant more to me than you'll ever know. I felt as if I had 2500 friends all behind me, and that's a *powerful* force! Well done one and all! Thank you! Best regards for the upcoming year. Your Email List Administrator, Matt Dralle RV-4 Builder #1763 =================== 1999 List of Contributors #1 ==================== Abell, John Acker, Rob Adams, Bob Adamson, Larry Ahamer, Karl Albachten, Rudy III Alcazar, Jesus Allen, Brent Allison, Steven Ammeter, John Amundsen, Blair Anderson, Edward Armstrong, Robert Arnold, James Aronson, David Ashford, James Ashton, Kent Atkinson, Harold Baggett, Robert Baker, Gary Baker, Ray Baldwin, James Barlow, Melvin Barnes, Thomas Barnes, Tom Barnhart, Dave Barrenechea, Godo Battles, Brenton BB Diversified Services, LTD Bechtel, Amos Bell, Bruce Belted Air Power LTD. Benhan, Dallas Bennett, Peter Besing, Paul Bieber, Mike Bilodeau, Paul Bird, Carroll Blanton, Stan Bleier, Roger Blomgren, Jack Blum, Ronald Boadright, Kyle Boardman, Don III Boatright, Kyle Boatright, Robert Bodie, Pete Bonesteel, Wayne Booze, Gregory Borne, Charles Bourgeois, Rion Bourne, Larry Bovan Pe, Vaso Bowen, Larry Bowen, Miles Bower, Bob Bowhay, Eustace Bowman, Brian R Boyd, Rodney Branscomb, Warren Bray, Garrett Brian Lloyd Brick, John Bridgham, David Brogley, Mike Brooks, Chris Brooks, John Brott, Marvin Brown, Kent Brown, Scott Buckwalter, David - Avionics Systems Burlingame, Ralph Burnham, Dave Calhoun, Ronald Calvert, Jerry Cantrell, Ken Capen, Ralph Cardinal, Gregory Carey, Christopher Carr, David Carter, Jerry Carter, Ron Casey, Jeremy Chapple, Glen Chesnut, Bruce Chesnut, William Christensen, Peter Christie, William Churchill, Frank Ciolino, John Clabots, Gerald Clark, Howard Clark, James Clary, Buck Clay, Dennis Cloughley, Bill Cole, Ed Colontonio, Moe Colucci, Anthoney Conaway, James Cook, David Sr. Cooley, John Copeland, Forrest Corder, Michael Corriveau, Grant Cotter, Timothy Cox, Carson Croby, Harry Crosley, Richard Cullen, Chuck Czinkota, Garnet Dall, Richard Daudt, Larry Davidson, Jeff Davis, Christopher Davis, Jared Davis, Steve - The Panel Pilot Davis, William Day, Robert Deffner, David Del Peso, Jose Derrik, Chuck Desmond, Richard Devine, Steven Devlin, John Dewees, Ron Dial, J.R. Dominey, Clifford Dorsey, Bob Downing, Jeff Dubroc, Tommy Dudley, Richard Duffy, Russell Duncan, John Dunlap, E.T. Dziewiontkoski, Bob Eagleston, Ron Eagleston, Ronald Eastburn, James Elder, William Elhai, Irv Emrath, Marty Ensing, Dale Ervin, Thomas Erwin, Chip - Czech Aircraft Works Evans, Monte Exstrom, Daniel Faile, David Farrar, Jeffrey Farris, Paul Fetzer, George Fiedler, Mike Filucci, Michael - Red Dragon Aviaion Finch, K Flaherty, Edward Floyd, Joseph Ford, David Forrest, Gerald Forsting, Robert Fortner, Earl Four Star Products Frank, Dan Franz, Carl Frazier, Vince Frederick, Mark French, Edwin Friedman, Frank Froehlich, Carl Fromm, John Fry, John Funk, Edwin Jr. Funnell, Augustus George, William Gilbert, Mark Giusti, Roberto Glaser, Arthur Glass, Roy Glover, Ken Gold, Andy - Builder's Book Store Goldberg, Mark Good, Chris Gooding, Lawrence Goolsby, Jim Gott, Shelby Goudreault, Jacques Graham, James Jr. Grant, Jordan Griffin, Bill Griffin, Randy Groom, Larry Guillosso, Alain Hale, Michael Hales, Sherman Hall, Bob Hall, Thomas Hamer, Steven Hamilton, Thom Hamilton, William Hand, Chris Hansen, Ronald Hargis, Merle Harmon, John Harper, Malcom Harrill, Roy Harris, John Hart, Daniel Harvey, Doug Hassall, J.C. Hastedt, Margaret Hatch, Fletcher III Hatcher, Clive Hatfield, Cecil Hays, Wes Henderson, George Henderson, Randall Heritch, Ian Herndon, Richard Herren, Bill Hevern, Jerry Hiatt, Mark Hiers, Craig Hinch, Christopher Hine, Joe Hinkley, Curtis Hinrichsen, James Hodge, Jack Hodgson, Bob Hodson, Frank Hoffman, Carl Holcombe, Richard Horton, Kevin Hoshowski, Ken Hrycauk, Dave Hughes, Robert Hulen, Fred Hundley, Richard Hurd, James Hurlbut, Steve Hutcheson, Ken Ihlenburg, Fred Ingram, Jim Irace, Bill Irwin, Eric Isler, Jerry Ivers, James James, Larry Janes, Bob Janicki, Steven Japundza, Bob Jeens, Ken Johannsson, Johann Johnson, Jackie Johnson, Stephen Jones, Bryan Jones, Rob Jones, Russ Jonker, Bill Jordan, Thomas Jory, Rick Kampthorne, Hal Kayner, Dennis Keithley, Rick King, Da Ve Kirby, Dennis Kirby, Graham Kirtland, Charles Kitz, John Knezacek, Dan Knievel, Gerald Knoll, Bruce Kosta, Michael Kowalski, Ed Krueger, Dan Krueger, Scott Kuss, Charlie Laczko, Frank Sr. Lamb, Richard Lane, Kevin Lassen, Finn Laurence, Peter Laverty, Mike Lawson, John Leaf, Dave Lee, John Lee, Ric LeGare, Garry Leggette, Len Leonard, William Lerohl, Gaylen Lervold, Randy Lewis, Terry Lewis, Tim Ligon, Howard Lind, Laird Linebaugh, Jeffrey Loeber, Wayne Ludeman, Bruce Lutes, Rick Mac Donald, Lawrence MacKay, Alex Malczynski, Francis Mandell, Tom Marino, Anthony Marion, Chris Markert, Michael Marshall, Robert Martin, Tom Maxson, Phil Mazatuad, Mme Hyun Sook McElhoe, Bruce McFarlane, Lloyd McGee, Michael McHarry, Joe McHenry, Tedd McKibben, Gerald McNamara, Don Melder, Frank Melia, Tom Metzger, Stephen Meyers, John Miller, Jim & Dondi - Aircraft Technical Support Mitchell, Duane Moen, Craig Mojzisik, Allan Molzen, Jason Mondy, Malia Moore, Thomas Moore, Warren Morelli, Bill Morelli, William Morris, Daniel III Morrison, Mark Morrow, Dan Moulin, Roger Munn, Mike Murphy, Ray Jr. Neal, Danny Nellis, Michael Nelson, James Nelson, Jim Newell, Alan Nguyen, Thomas Nice, James Nicely, Vincent Norris, Rob Nowakowski, Donald Noyer, Robert Nuckolls, Robert Olendorf, Scott Olson, Larry Olson, Tom Orear, Jeffrey Owens, Laird Palinkas, Gary Pardue, Larry Paulson, Craig Peck, Bill & Kathy Peer, Michael - Jem Aviation Peryk, Dennis Peternel, Stanley Petersen, Eric Petersen, Paul Peterson, Alex Pflanzer, Randy Phillips, Mark Pickrell, Jim Pike, Richard Pinneo, George Pittenger, Dick Plathey, Claude Point, Jeff Polstra, Philip Porter, Richard Porter, Robert Potter, Mark Pretzsch, Robert Ragsdale, Bill Randolph, George Ransom, Ben Rathbun, Richard Reeck, Jay Reed, Derek Reed, Frank Reisdorfer, Mark Reynolds, Richard Richardson, Ray - Powersport Aviation Inc. Riedlinger, Paul Riley, Stuart Roach, Brian Rodgers, Brian Rosales, Paul Rowbotham, Charles Rowles, Les Rozendaal, Doug Rutherford, Ted Sa, Carlos Sager, Jim Sailer, Martin SanClemente, Andrew Sapp, Doug Sargent, Tom Sax, Samuel Schemmel, Grant Schippers, John Schmitt, Clayton Schneeflock, Robert Schrimmer, Mark Schwarz, Guillermo Selby, Jim - JKL Aviation Sales Seward, Douglas Shackleford, Howard Shafer, Jim Shank, Bill Sheets, Douglas Shenk, Doug Shepherd, Dallas Shettel, Maurice Shipley, Walter Sigmon, Harvey Silverstein, Chuck Sipp, Dick Slaughter, Mike Small, Thomas Smith, Clayton Smith, Edmund Smith, Philip Smith, Shelby Smithey, Lloyd Snyder, David Solecki, John Sparks, Timothy Stafford, David Staub, Skip Steer, Bill Stobbe, Bruce Stoffers, Larry Stone, James Strandjord, Eric Swaney, Mark Tauch, Eric Tauchen, Bryan Taylor, Tod Team Rocket Thayer, George Therrien, Michel Thistelthwaite, Geoffrey Thoman, Daniel Thomas, Lee Thomas, Tim Thompson, Michael Todd, John Tompkins, Jeff Tower, John True, George Tucker, Harold Tuton, Beauford Tyrrel, Charles Upshur, Bill Uribe, Guillermo Uribe, Gullermo Utterback, Thomas Van Der Sanden, Gert Vandervort, Ronald VanGrunsven, Stanley Varnes, William Volum, Peter Von Ruden, Dennis VonLindern, Paul Vosberg, Roy Waligroski, Gregg Walker, Tommy Walrath, Howard Ward, Ed Warren, John Washburn, Oliver Watson, Dennis Watson, Terrence Watson, William Webb, Randol Weber, Ed Weber, Edward Weller, Michael Wendel, Jim Wentzell, David Werner, Russ Werner, Russell Westridge, David Whelan, Thomas Whiler, Douglas Whitehead, Arthur Wiesel, Dan Wigney, John Williams, Jimmy Williams, Keith Williams, Lawrence Willig, Louis Wills, Mike Wilson, Billy Wittman, James Wood, Denton Wood, John Wood, Mark Worstell, Glen Worthington, Victor Wotring, Dale Wymer, Gerald Young, Charles Young, Rollin Youngblood, Barry Zeidman, Richard Zigaitis, Kestutis Zinkham, Ralph Zwart, Frank -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vaso Bovan" <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ?
Date: Dec 07, 1999
An aftermarket product, the Ney nozzle, provides extra oil lubrication of Lycoming engine cam shafts. I'd like to know whether Ney nozzles are worth specifying when overhauling an engine. One opinion is that Ney nozzles do significantly increase lubrication (and cooling). The other point of view (expressed by an experienced engine overhauler) is that the extra oil squirt of the Ney nozzle takes oil pressure away from other oil galleries, especially during the crucial first minute, so that the net effect of Ney nozzles is negative. He mentioned that some Lycoming engines can be fitted with bigger oil pumps, which compensate for the pressure drop caused by Ney nozzles. Which opinion is most correct ? -Vaso ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 07, 1999
From: n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com>
Subject: Re: Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ?
On my O-320 the oil pressure is highest during the first minute, some 10-15 lbs while the oil temp is at OAT. I considered this same question when overhauling and decided that with my flying one or two times a week the factory lubrication was probably adequate. So many aspects of aircraft engines seem to defy seat of the pants logic. Some say that roller cam followers can increase horsepower and lower oil temps, after all, many race cars use them. Another study indicated that rollers gave no improvement or actually caused increased cam lobe wear in aircraft engines. Look up an article on Ney nozzles in a back issue of Light Plane Maintenance, very thorough stuff. kevin rv-6a 450+hrs ---------- > From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Engines-List: Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ? > Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 7:33 PM > > > An aftermarket product, the Ney nozzle, provides extra oil lubrication of > Lycoming engine cam shafts. I'd like to know whether Ney nozzles are worth > specifying when overhauling an engine. One opinion is that Ney nozzles do > significantly increase lubrication (and cooling). The other point of view > (expressed by an experienced engine overhauler) is that the extra oil squirt > of the Ney nozzle takes oil pressure away from other oil galleries, > especially during the crucial first minute, so that the net effect of Ney > nozzles is negative. He mentioned that some Lycoming engines can be fitted > with bigger oil pumps, which compensate for the pressure drop caused by Ney > nozzles. > > Which opinion is most correct ? > > > -Vaso > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ?
Date: Dec 08, 1999
"Dry starts" cause more wear than many hours of running. Cold engines accellerate this. Other than a pre-luber, and heating, careful start procedure is important. I have used the Ney nozzles on some engines, and although the point of lower pressure at start up is valid, the aircraft engine oil pump is more than capable of handling it. IMHO the nozzles are a plus. Is it worth the money? Ask your wallet. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Johnny Johnson <bbds(at)means.net>
Subject: Ney Nozzles
Date: Dec 08, 1999
Does someone have a $$ figure on these Ney Nozzles? I assume the the case needs to be split to install them? Lubing what IMHO is a very weak spot on the Lycomings--the cam lobes--can only be a positive, I would think. They sit up on top, out there in the thin air, relying on some oil getting slopped/oozing there somehow as the engine runs. If the engine has been sitting a long time or your oil film isn't of the tenacious type ... ouch during startup. Ask an engine guy what failure causes most early overhauls on the little Lycs and I'll bet he says cam lobes, particularly the "double pusher" lobes. I just went thru a very early overhaul caused by cam lobes, so this is a tender subject about now. If you are in the process of an overhaul, it seems like serious consideration should be given to installing a preoiler with the Ney Nozzles (I didn't--was ignorant of their existance). I wonder why Lycoming designed the engines this way? They tell you any idle time over a week (or is it 10 days--a ridiculously short time at any rate) is "long term storage"--probably largely because of these cam lobes getting dry and then galling during start or corroding (mine had corroded--lifters had pits in them!). Johnny Johnson 49MM -3A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vaso Bovan" <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: Manual Pre-oiler ?
Date: Dec 08, 1999
The problem with electric engine pre-oilers (apart from the $1K price) is mass - 2.9kg/6.3lb+ of dead weight. (See for instance www.oilomatic.com). Aircraft Spruce sells a manual engine pre-oiler (pg 233, P/N 08-06770) for $165.40. Apparently this lever-operation mechanical pump can be mounted on the instrument panel or on the engine side of the firewall. Has anyone had any experience with this or any other mechanical pre-oiler pump ? Is it possible to rig a Faucet gasoline pump to serve as a pro-oiler pump ? -Vaso ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 1999
From: Scot Stambaugh <stambaug(at)qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Manual Pre-oiler ?
I am very interested in pre-oilers for lycomings(mostly the IO-540's). The web site below didn't work. Does anybody have more information on pre-oiler systems for experimental aircraft? scot > >The problem with electric engine pre-oilers (apart from the $1K price) is >mass - 2.9kg/6.3lb+ of dead weight. (See for instance www.oilomatic.com). >Aircraft Spruce sells a manual engine pre-oiler (pg 233, P/N 08-06770) for >$165.40. Apparently this lever-operation mechanical pump can be mounted on >the instrument panel or on the engine side of the firewall. > >Has anyone had any experience with this or any other mechanical pre-oiler >pump ? > >Is it possible to rig a Faucet gasoline pump to serve as a pro-oiler pump ? > >-Vaso > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vaso Bovan" <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: Manual Pre-oiler ?
Date: Dec 08, 1999
My error - the site is www.oilamatic.com. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scot > Stambaugh > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 11:25 AM > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com; engines-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Manual Pre-oiler ? > > > I am very interested in pre-oilers for lycomings(mostly the > IO-540's). The web site below didn't work. Does anybody have more > information on pre-oiler systems for experimental aircraft? > > scot > > >> >>The problem with electric engine pre-oilers (apart from the $1K price) is >>mass - 2.9kg/6.3lb+ of dead weight. (See for instance www.oilomatic.com). >>Aircraft Spruce sells a manual engine pre-oiler (pg 233, P/N >>08-06770) for $165.40. Apparently this lever-operation mechanical pump can >>be mounted on the instrument panel or on the engine side of the firewall. >> >>Has anyone had any experience with this or any other mechanical pre-oiler >>pump ? >> >>Is it possible to rig a Faucet gasoline pump to serve as a >>pro-oiler pump ? >>-Vaso ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Ney Nozzles
Date: Dec 08, 1999
> I wonder why Lycoming designed the engines this way? I do a number of seminars on this sort of thing. keep in mind that these engines were designed 60-70 years ago, and have not changed. Many reasons for this, but outstanding is the lack of R & D money, & the lack of the manufacturer's incentive to improve these engines. As long as people are willing to pay these prices, why should they change? I have called Lycoming and Continental with questions their engineering departments could not answer, or had no documentation on. (Of course, in those days, our great- grandparents did the research, there was no science to it, and If it worked ok, it was produced). I coined a statement that is used in all my talks: "If automotive engines progressed at the same rate as aircraft piston engines, we would all be driving model T Fords." The last time someone requested the nozzles, I believe Chuck Ney charged me $370. for the STC installation. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 1999
From: Garry Legare <versadek(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Manual Pre-oiler ?
The problem with using all pre oilers on Lycoming engines is not the cost (were rich right, how else could we afford to build an airplane) or weight (eat a couple less deserts over the holidays and you'll be even). The BIG problem with Lycs is the cam lobes dry off during periods of inactivity. This can lead to rusting of the bare metal surfaces. On first start the lobes and cam followers (lifters) are dry and possibly corroded. When they rub on each other it causes excessive wear, and expensive repair bills. The pre oilers only pressurizes the oil galleries. On MOST Lycs there is no oil directed at the followers and cam lobes from the oil galleries (Lycoming uses oil mist and splashed oil to lube them) therefore the pre oilers are not really very effective in reducing startup wear. Garry LeGare, TC 4212-RV6 180/0360,Sensenich-Finishing Vaso Bovan wrote: > > The problem with electric engine pre-oilers (apart from the $1K price) is > mass - 2.9kg/6.3lb+ of dead weight. (See for instance www.oilomatic.com). > Aircraft Spruce sells a manual engine pre-oiler (pg 233, P/N 08-06770) for > $165.40. Apparently this lever-operation mechanical pump can be mounted on > the instrument panel or on the engine side of the firewall. > > Has anyone had any experience with this or any other mechanical pre-oiler > pump ? > > Is it possible to rig a Faucet gasoline pump to serve as a pro-oiler pump ? > > -Vaso > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Manual Pre-oiler ?
Date: Dec 08, 1999
> > The problem with electric engine pre-oilers (apart from the $1K price) is > mass - 2.9kg/6.3lb+ of dead weight. (See for instance www.oilomatic.com). > Aircraft Spruce sells a manual engine pre-oiler (pg 233, P/N 08-06770) for > $165.40. Apparently this lever-operation mechanical pump can be mounted on > the instrument panel or on the engine side of the firewall. > > Has anyone had any experience with this or any other mechanical pre-oiler > pump ? > In racing, we have used these for pre start-up, but are a bit cumbersome and awkward. Many of my race engines incorporate an accumulator with a shutoff valve. It is light, does the job, recharges, and relatively inexpensive. > Is it possible to rig a Faucet gasoline pump to serve as a pro-oiler pump ? Have not done that, but feel that the oil's viscosity may be a negative factor which may over tax the pump. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 1999
From: Scot Stambaugh <stambaug(at)qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Manual Pre-oiler ?
Archie, Do you have any more info on the accumulator type pre-oilers? scot > > >> >> The problem with electric engine pre-oilers (apart from the $1K price) is >> mass - 2.9kg/6.3lb+ of dead weight. (See for instance www.oilomatic.com). >> Aircraft Spruce sells a manual engine pre-oiler (pg 233, P/N 08-06770) for >> $165.40. Apparently this lever-operation mechanical pump can be mounted on >> the instrument panel or on the engine side of the firewall. >> >> Has anyone had any experience with this or any other mechanical pre-oiler >> pump ? >> In racing, we have used these for pre start-up, but are a >bit cumbersome > and awkward. Many of my race engines incorporate an >accumulator > with a shutoff valve. It is light, does the job, >recharges, and relatively > inexpensive. >> Is it possible to rig a Faucet gasoline pump to serve as a pro-oiler pump >? > Have not done that, but feel that the oil's viscosity >may be a negative > factor which may over tax the pump. >Archie > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com>
Subject: Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ?
Date: Dec 08, 1999
> --snip-- > So many aspects > of aircraft > engines seem to defy seat of the pants logic. Some say that > roller cam > followers can increase horsepower and lower oil temps, after > all, many race > cars use them. Another study indicated that rollers gave no > improvement or > actually caused increased cam lobe wear in aircraft engines. I think this is more a case of "seat of the pants logic" being wrong, as opposed to anything unusual about aircraft engines. Roller cam followers are not used in race cars because they give longer life. They are used in race cars because they allow steeper lift gradients, and because they will last longer a t t h e h i g h R P M s used in car racing engines. Since Lycomings have modest cams, and run at very low RPMs, there's little reason to think that roller cam followers would make much improvement, if any. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Manual Pre-oiler ?
Date: Dec 08, 1999
> > Archie, > > Do you have any more info on the accumulator type pre-oilers? > > scot I have several suppliers, but my preference is: Canton Commerce Drive N.Branford, CT 06471 203-484-4900 (no website) Tell them Archie's Racing Service told you, and it will break the ice. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ?
Date: Dec 08, 1999
> I think this is more a case of "seat of the pants logic" being wrong, as > opposed to anything unusual about aircraft engines. Roller cam followers > are not used in race cars because they give longer life. They are used in > race cars because they allow steeper lift gradients, and because they will > last longer a t t h e h i g h R P M s used in car racing engines. > Since Lycomings have modest cams, and run at very low RPMs, there's little > reason to think that roller cam followers would make much improvement, if > any. > > Tedd McHenry > Surrey, BC Commentary: Most new cars incorporate rollers for longevity, and reduced internal friction, not because the factories wanted to spend more on manufacturing. As an addition to this, we run race engines with seat pressure of 170lbs, and open pressure of 900. Try that with a flat tappet! Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 1999
From: Vaso Bovan DSL <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: RE: Manual Pre-oiler ?
What is an "accumulator type pre-oiler" ? How does it work ? -Vaso > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Archie > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 5:27 PM > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Manual Pre-oiler ? > > > > > > > Archie, > > Do you have any more info on the accumulator type pre-oilers? > > scot > > I have several suppliers, but my preference is: > Canton > Commerce Drive > N.Branford, CT > 06471 > 203-484-4900 > (no website) > Tell them Archie's Racing Service told you, > and it will break the ice. > > Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Manual Pre-oiler ?
Date: Dec 09, 1999
> > What is an "accumulator type pre-oiler" ? How does it work ? > > -Vaso It is a small tube, 3"x 12" (comes in various sizes), with a floating piston inside. One side holds oil, the other, either a spring, or air pressure. The oil pressure side has a shutoff valve mounted with an oil line attached to the engine oiling system. With the valve open and the engine running the accumulator is charged with engine oil pressure. Should the pressure drop(even instantly), the pressurized accumulator oil will rush in to fill the void. If/when oil pressure returns, the accumulator will re-charge. Upon engine shut down, close the valve, and the charge remains in the accumulator. Upon the next start up, open the valve to fill the engine oil passages to avoid a "dry start", otherwise the engine pump must fill these voids before oil throw off reaches the cam. The camshaft has a slightly better chance by receiving oil a bit sooner. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com>
Subject: Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ?
Date: Dec 09, 1999
> > Commentary: > Most new cars incorporate rollers for longevity, and > reduced internal friction, not because the factories > wanted to spend more on manufacturing. > As an addition to this, we run race engines with seat > pressure of 170lbs, and open pressure of 900. > Try that with a flat tappet! > Archie You're right, I forgot internal friction. But don't your race engines have high seat pressure primarily as a result of the stiff valve springs required when you have high RPMs and steep lift gradients? That seems to be another way of saying the same thing I said. When you say "most new cars incorporate rollers for longevity," do you mean most of the cars that incorporate roller lifters do so for longevity, or literally that most new cars use roller lifters? I didn't think that roller lifters were now the norm, even with all the emphasis on internal friction. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Ney Nozzle on Lycoming Engines ?
Date: Dec 09, 1999
> > > > Commentary: > > Most new cars incorporate rollers for longevity, and > > reduced internal friction, not because the factories > > wanted to spend more on manufacturing. > > As an addition to this, we run race engines with seat > > pressure of 170lbs, and open pressure of 900. > > Try that with a flat tappet! > > Archie > > You're right, I forgot internal friction. But don't your race engines have > high seat pressure primarily as a result of the stiff valve springs required > when you have high RPMs and steep lift gradients? That seems to be another > way of saying the same thing I said. That is correct, Tedd > When you say "most new cars incorporate rollers for longevity," do you mean > most of the cars that incorporate roller lifters do so for longevity, or > literally that most new cars use roller lifters? I didn't think that roller > lifters were now the norm, even with all the emphasis on internal friction. Tedd, I did not contaradict you, merely adding to your commentary. And yes, many auto manufacturers incorporate rollers for the same reasons: Reduced internal friction +less wear = better warranty = projected better sales. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Johnny Johnson <bbds(at)means.net>
Subject: "Contact!" magazine
Date: Dec 10, 1999
If any of you that are interested in alternate power for airplanes are not getting "Contact!" magazine, I'd sure encourage you to sign up. I have no connection whatsoever with the publication or publisher, but have gotten it "since day one" and find lots of tidbits in there. Here's how you find out about it: http://www.nonprofitnet.com/contact/ It deals primarily with info on converting auto engines for use in airplanes. There is an occasional article on other conversions, like motorcycle-->airplane, but mostly it is larger engines such as the Legacy, SVX, Mazda rotary, GM & Ford V6 & V8, etc. Recently there was an interesting writeup on Bruce Bohannan's "Pushy Galore". Also, you'll find highly informative articles on new engines coming out of Detroit like the Northstar. Mick Myall, the publisher, is a retired auto industry heavy and has lots of contacts in the design depts there. Johnny Johnson Working on 2.5L Suburu --> Champ Flying a Lycoming RV-3A and a Lycoming Funk ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: "Contact!" magazine
Date: Dec 10, 1999
> > If any of you that are interested in alternate power for airplanes are not > getting "Contact!" magazine, I'd sure encourage you to sign up. I have no > connection whatsoever with the publication or publisher, but have gotten it > "since day one" and find lots of tidbits in there. Here's how you find out > about it: > > http://www.nonprofitnet.com/contact/ I agree, it is a good mag for the homebuilder, and there is no advertising. I have written for Mick Myal, who attends all major air events. (don't mention my name, I still owe him a few articles). Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 18, 1999
From: Michael Brittain Crowell <britt(at)fortcollins.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99
Is there anyone besides me on this list? -- Britt -- "Smiling is not just a facial expression, its a way of life." Michael Brittain Crowell 9-1-98 -- "The Laws of Aerodynamics are unforgiving and the ground is hard." Michael Collins (1987) NetZero - Defenders of the Free World ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russ Jones" <russj1(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99
Date: Dec 18, 1999
I am currently building a EA-81 and plan to build a Zenith 601XL starting 1st quarter 2000. I am monitoring this list and I will also reply to your other request. Russ Jones -----Original Message----- From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michael Brittain Crowell Sent: Saturday, December 18, 1999 10:55 PM Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99 Is there anyone besides me on this list? -- Britt -- "Smiling is not just a facial expression, its a way of life." Michael Brittain Crowell 9-1-98 -- "The Laws of Aerodynamics are unforgiving and the ground is hard." Michael Collins (1987) NetZero - Defenders of the Free World ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 18, 1999
From: Michael McGee <jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99
> >Is there anyone besides me on this list? >-- >Britt >-- Uh-huh... Michael McGee PE, N6358G N996RV jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." Mark Twain ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sten Svensson" <sten(at)stonab.se>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99
Date: Dec 19, 1999
Me here too! Sten Svensson ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Brittain Crowell <britt(at)fortcollins.com> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 5:54 AM Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99 > > Is there anyone besides me on this list? > -- > Britt > -- > "Smiling is not just a facial expression, its a way of life." > Michael Brittain Crowell 9-1-98 > -- > "The Laws of Aerodynamics are unforgiving and the ground is hard." > Michael Collins (1987) > > > NetZero - Defenders of the Free World > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99
Date: Dec 19, 1999
> > Is there anyone besides me on this list? > -- > Britt This list is relatively new, and may take a while to grow. I personally have answered several questions here. Archie Archie's Racing Service ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 19, 1999
From: "John O. Myers" <jmyers(at)powernet.org>
Subject: Re: Homebuilt-List
>--> Cessna-List message posted by: Michael Brittain Crowell > >Is there anyone besides me on this list? >-- >Britt We am signed up on several lists but haven't noticed any traffic on some of them. We have a couple of Cessnas and hope to start on an RV8 sometime in the near future. I am in trouble already for building a runway and workshop before building my wife a house, so had to start on the house. A new hanger is next and then hopefully a build project. Hope you all have a great holiday season and we wish you the best for the next year. John O. and Joyce L. Myers N3282T N8158T Flying M Ranch Cedar Bluff Alabama N34 19.4' W085 38.5' ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99
Date: Dec 19, 1999
>Is there anyone besides me on this list? Yes... just not very active ;-) Steve Steven J. Devine, President, Consultant, TZOGON Enterprises Incorporated steve@tzogon.com HAM Tech lic: N1YZJ http://www.tzogon.com http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/glass_cockpit http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/stolch801 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Luce" <robluce1(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Rotary engines
Date: Dec 19, 1999
Ok, I've been playing with an idea. While I'm not at the point where I could build a plane (at least not for the next 2 years), I wouldn't mind getting my hands oilly working on a engine to put in the plane. I'm seriously thinking of getting ahold of a rotary, probably a Mazda 13B and spending the next couple years getting used to working on it. Unfortunately, none of the junkyards around here have one for sale. Any suggestions as to where to find one? Rob Luce ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jon Alston" <jalsto(at)flash.net>
Subject: Re: Rotary engines
Date: Dec 19, 1999
I have always thought that would be a perfect engine for a homebuilt. It has such a small frontal area, high output to weight ratio, and bulletproof reputation. Try either Lone Star Japanese engines or East River International in Dallas, Texas. They import engines from used/ wrecked vehicles in Japan. Good luck. I have a '53 D35 Bonanza. Anyone familiar with the Continental E series engines? Jon Alston Dallas -----Original Message----- From: Rob Luce <robluce1(at)yahoo.com> Date: Sunday, December 19, 1999 8:59 AM Subject: Engines-List: Rotary engines > > >Ok, I've been playing with an idea. While I'm not at the point where I >could build a plane (at least not for the next 2 years), I wouldn't mind >getting my hands oilly working on a engine to put in the plane. I'm >seriously thinking of getting ahold of a rotary, probably a Mazda 13B and >spending the next couple years getting used to working on it. > >Unfortunately, none of the junkyards around here have one for sale. Any >suggestions as to where to find one? > > Rob Luce > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Rotary engines
Date: Dec 19, 1999
> > > Ok, I've been playing with an idea. While I'm not at the point where I > could build a plane (at least not for the next 2 years), I wouldn't mind > getting my hands oilly working on a engine to put in the plane. I'm > seriously thinking of getting ahold of a rotary, probably a Mazda 13B and > spending the next couple years getting used to working on it. > > Unfortunately, none of the junkyards around here have one for sale. Any > suggestions as to where to find one? > > Rob Luce Rob, They are plentiful in the Northeast, however, the best way to acquire one is to buy a whole car that is slated for the boneyard. Salvage yards, (a friend has two)pay little or nothing for a car, and charge lots for parts. I have 5 engines (not for sale), and never paid more than $200. for a complete car. Some were driveable. In one case, I sold two bodies to a Mazda racer for $100. ea., after removing engines, trans, electronics, radiators, etc. Keep your eyes open, and look in the news papers. 200hp out of 80cu.in. isn't bad. Try that with an antique aircraft engine. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RobertR237(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 19, 1999
Subject: Re: lists
In a message dated 12/19/99 8:54:04 AM Central Standard Time, steve(at)tzogon.com writes: > > >I am in trouble already for building a runway and workshop before > >building my wife a house, so had to start on the house. A new > >hanger is next and then hopefully a build project. > > I'm jealous! > > Sounds like your wife needs a priority adjustment. ;-) Now I have one to really make you see green with envy. My wife and I live in a home that I had custom built a little over 23 years ago. About 7 years back we remodeled (rebuilt is more like it) and added 1700 sq.ft. on to the original house. The addition included a new master bedroom and bath to die for as well as enlarged family room, very large office and another half bath. The finished home is now almost 3800 sq ft with 4 bedrooms, formal living and dining, etc, etc, etc. You would think that would make my wife happy....right? Well, she is....but....now she informs me that shortly after my 21 year old daughter leaves the nest that she would like for us to sell the house and move. Now here is where it gets interesting. She doesn't want to move to another house but instead wants me to buy a piece of property at the airport and build a hangar with the living quarters in the hangar. She has seen similar layouts at the local airport and thinks it would be great to not have to worry about a yard to take care of. She also wants to be able to leave on trips without having to be so concerned about the house. Now I ask you, Did I find a WINNER or what? Now if I could just find the right engine for my KIS Cruiser project I would have it made. Bob Reed ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RobertR237(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 19, 1999
Subject: Re: Rotary engines
In a message dated 12/19/99 8:59:11 AM Central Standard Time, robluce1(at)yahoo.com writes: > > Ok, I've been playing with an idea. While I'm not at the point where I > could build a plane (at least not for the next 2 years), I wouldn't mind > getting my hands oilly working on a engine to put in the plane. I'm > seriously thinking of getting ahold of a rotary, probably a Mazda 13B and > spending the next couple years getting used to working on it. > > Unfortunately, none of the junkyards around here have one for sale. Any > suggestions as to where to find one? > > Rob Luce > > Rob, Check out Paul Lamar's web site for some excellent links to sources for Rotary Engines and equipment. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ Paul also has a large amount of information on the rotary and maintains a mailing list for the rotary engine. Check it out. He is also planning on installing a rotary in his KIS Cruiser project. I also believe that I could find some locally available rotary engines if you can't find them locally. Houston has one Mazda only bone yard with several in stock. Bob Reed KIS Cruiser in progress....... http://robertr237.virtualave.net/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com>
Subject: Re: Homebuilt-List
Date: Dec 19, 1999
John, Wives are funny that way. I also monitor the engine list. I'm working on a Tailwind with an O320. John -----Original Message----- From: John O. Myers <jmyers(at)powernet.org> engines-list(at)matronics.com Date: Sunday, December 19, 1999 9:35 AM Subject: Re: Cessna-List: Cessna List: Engines-List: Homebuilt-List > >>--> Cessna-List message posted by: Michael Brittain Crowell > >> >>Is there anyone besides me on this list? >>-- >>Britt > >We am signed up on several lists but haven't noticed any traffic on some of >them. We have a couple of Cessnas and hope to start on an RV8 sometime in >the near future. I am in trouble already for building a runway and >workshop before building my wife a house, so had to start on the house. A >new hanger is next and then hopefully a build project. > >Hope you all have a great holiday season and we wish you the best for the >next year. > >John O. and Joyce L. Myers >N3282T N8158T >Flying M Ranch >Cedar Bluff Alabama >N34 19.4' W085 38.5' > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 19, 1999
From: jaugilas <jaugilas(at)allways.net>
Subject: Re: Rotary engines
I'm not presently working on a project that would take such a large engine. I know that thinking that a Mazda is large is funny, but I working on a plane that will use a 1/2 VW. That doesn't keep me from planning for the future. Is there someone who has done the ground work on the conversion for the rotary Mazda? Are there conversion plans? What would be the the finished conversion's weight? Archie wrote: > > > > > > > Ok, I've been playing with an idea. While I'm not at the point where I > > could build a plane (at least not for the next 2 years), I wouldn't mind > > getting my hands oilly working on a engine to put in the plane. I'm > > seriously thinking of getting ahold of a rotary, probably a Mazda 13B and > > spending the next couple years getting used to working on it. > > > > Unfortunately, none of the junkyards around here have one for sale. Any > > suggestions as to where to find one? > > > > Rob Luce > Rob, They are plentiful in the Northeast, however, the best way to > acquire one is to buy a whole car that is slated for the boneyard. > Salvage yards, (a friend has two)pay little or nothing for a car, > and charge lots for parts. > I have 5 engines (not for sale), and never paid more than $200. > for a complete car. Some were driveable. In one case, I sold two > bodies to a Mazda racer for $100. ea., after removing engines, trans, > electronics, radiators, etc. > Keep your eyes open, and look in the news papers. > 200hp out of 80cu.in. isn't bad. Try that with an antique > aircraft engine. > Archie > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com>
Subject: Re: Rotary engines
Date: Dec 19, 1999
Archie, -----Original Message----- From: Archie <archie97(at)earthlink.net> Date: Sunday, December 19, 1999 10:28 AM Subject: Re: Engines-List: Rotary engines >.....200hp out of 80cu.in. isn't bad. Try that with an antique >aircraft engine...... Them thar are fightin words! :-) The output of a conventional aircraft engine is a direct result of not wanting to use gear reduction and wanting to achieve large TBOs. And not because its an antique engine. You make it sound like the engineers of yesteryear were a bunch of dummies. They were and are not. I've seen a specialty built diesel engine put out over 7 HP/cubic inch @ 7000 rpm and a boost of something like 5 atmospheres or more. Of course it needed to last only 25 hrs. Automotive race engines can put out even more. It a simple matter of how much air you can cram through the engine and how long you can make it last. Im not saying you can't improve on it, but its performance is a direct result of design decisions made and not because it was initially designed in the 30ies. If you want to improve on it in any meaningful way you have to make different design decisions and solve some pretty basic problems. In particular you would have to: 1) Run it faster and use gear reduction. 2) Turbocharge it to high boost levels. 3) use a diesel cycle so that you can boost it to high levels. 4) pick compact light weight layout (like a rotary, a flat 6, radial, etc). 5) solve the ring wear problems associated with high pressure,temps and rpm. (this is the real tough one!) All of these problems were well known by the end of the 40ies. Materials have improved since then as well as analysis techniques with the aid of computers. The biggest problem aviation has is it is such a small market that you can't put in enough R&D $. The automotive market is large but it doesn't build engines that are optimized for aircraft use. That is left to dedicated amatures with limited funds but lots of zeal. The large out -board marine market is very interesting because there useage and weight concerns are similar to aircraft. John ps: I feel better already. This is turning out to be a pretty good day. :-) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vaso Bovan" <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: Aviation vs Automobile Engines
Date: Dec 19, 1999
>>.....200hp out of 80cu.in. isn't bad. Try that with an antique >>aircraft engine...... >Them thar are fightin words! :-) > >The output of a conventional aircraft engine is a direct result of not >wanting to use gear reduction and wanting to achieve large TBOs. And not >because its an antique engine. You make it sound like the engineers of >yesteryear were a bunch of dummies. They were and are not. >... >The biggest problem aviation has is it is such a small market >that you can't put in enough R&D $... It would have been interesting to see how aviation's gasoline engines might have progressed if the bottom didn't fall out of the market in the late 1970s. The fuel intake and combustion processes of these engines are astonishingly simple/primitive and non-optimized. What could close control of spark timing, optimized intake, combustion chamber, and exhaust geometry bring to aviation gasoline engines ? Maybe not much more horsepower out of the same cubes, but a lot better fuel efficiency, cleaner and cheaper running, and - incidentally - less pollution. I sometimes wonder why isolated, underfunded and often "amateur" individuals and groups spend decades plugging away at trying to convert automobile engines into aviation engines, with marginal success, while significant gains could be made in optimizing current aviation engines with equivalent - and less futile - effort. (Getting the improvements certified is another matter, of course). Show me an optimized 2000hr IO-360 that gets - say - 10% more power on 20% less gasoline, tolerant of unleaded mogas, and I would quickly lose interest in all the rotary/Subaru/Ford conversion efforts (at least until the Diesels get underway). Vaso ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 1999
From: Frank and Dorothy <frankvdh(at)ihug.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Aviation vs Automobile Engines
Vaso Bovan wrote: > I sometimes wonder why > isolated, underfunded and often "amateur" individuals and groups spend > decades plugging away at trying to convert automobile engines into aviation > engines, with marginal success, while significant gains could be made in > optimizing current aviation engines with equivalent - and less futile - > effort. I think because screwing round with an aircraft engine is big money. You need an aircraft engine to start with. Then, as soon as you screw with it it becomes uncertified (and uncertifiable, I think) and hence loses a lot of value. An uncertified engine is worth less than a certified engine, even if the uncertified one is more fuel-efficient, cheaper and cleaner running, and less polluting. So, after all your improvement work, you have lost money. The whole expensive certification process has largely killed the innovation in the aircraft engine industry. Frank. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 19, 1999
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 12/17/99
From: wdmead <wdmead(at)compusmart.ab.ca>
I too watch the Engines list today 22 messages...neat. My Mini-Imp will need about 100HP in a year or so, so I am looking ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sten Svensson" <sten(at)stonab.se>
Subject: Engine Monitor Systems
Date: Dec 19, 1999
Wow, lots of lurkers on the Engines List! The previous owner of my 450 Stearman told me not to move the mixture lever from it's "Tested To Be The Best Position". Now I'd like to monitor at least EGT when starting to play with the mixture. Anyone have any experience installing and/or using engine monitor systems (graphic/digital or analogue) on P&W Wasp J:r? Is it worth the money? Will an EGT and a CHT do a good enough job? Thanks. Sten Svensson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: lists
Date: Dec 19, 1999
> Now I ask you, Did I find a WINNER or what? Now if I could just find the > right engine for my KIS Cruiser project I would have it made. > > Bob Reed You have done well, Bob. Try rotaryeng(at)earthlink.net Paul, the moderator, is planning a rotary implant in his KIS. What other engine will give you 2hp/cu.in. with no mods? Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Rotary engines
Date: Dec 19, 1999
> Them thar are fightin words! :-) > > The output of a conventional aircraft engine is a direct result of not > wanting to use gear reduction and wanting to achieve large TBOs. And not > because its an antique engine. You make it sound like the engineers of > yesteryear were a bunch of dummies. They were and are not. > > I've seen a specialty built diesel engine put out over 7 HP/cubic inch @ > 7000 rpm and a boost of something like 5 atmospheres or more. Of course it > needed to last only 25 hrs. Automotive race engines can put out even more. > It a simple matter of how much air you can cram through the engine and how > long you can make it last. > > Im not saying you can't improve on it, but its performance is a direct > result of design decisions made and not because it was initially designed in > the 30ies. If you want to improve on it in any meaningful way you have to > make different design decisions and solve some pretty basic problems. In > particular you would have to: > > 1) Run it faster and use gear reduction. > 2) Turbocharge it to high boost levels. > 3) use a diesel cycle so that you can boost it to high levels. > 4) pick compact light weight layout (like a rotary, a flat 6, radial, etc). > 5) solve the ring wear problems associated with high pressure,temps and rpm. > (this is the real tough one!) > > All of these problems were well known by the end of the 40ies. Materials > have improved since then as well as analysis techniques with the aid of > computers. > > The biggest problem aviation has is it is such a small market that you can't > put in enough R&D $. The automotive market is large but it doesn't build > engines that are optimized for aircraft use. That is left to dedicated > amatures with limited funds but lots of zeal. The large out -board marine > market is very interesting because there useage and weight concerns are > similar to aircraft. > > John > > ps: I feel better already. This is turning out to be a pretty good day. I concur with most sentiments, John, but the point I am making is that no progress has been made to these engines in 60 years or so. There is a lot of missing documentation on them that was never generated. I have attempted to retrieve some from their engineers, and due to the fact that technology at that time is what was used, it has hardly changed in their application. The only improvement I am enthusiastic about, is the Mattituck/Aerosance Fadec system I have just written an article about. Because of many of the reasons you cited, does not mean people are bound to buy this archaic technology. Would you buy a new car if it were powered by a model T engine? Thank goodness for innovators and clear thinkers that can see beyond. I run seminars at OSH regarding these things, and we all have choices. Sorry about the feather ruffling, but I can back my statements with over 30 years of flow and dyno charting. And if you wish to discuss hp, (not longevity) todays nitro burner makes 10-11 hp/cu.in., my comment regarding 200hp from 80 cu.in. is normally aspirated, gear reduced, small, smooth, light, and 3 basic moving parts. The ultimate aircraft engine is, perhaps still, in someone's mind. Archie Archie's Racing Service ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation vs Automobile Engines
Date: Dec 19, 1999
Vaso, I think your message was "right on". If you have not read my article on the M/A FADEC system, I can e-mail you a copy. It is short, but informative. Since Continental bought them out, they may incorporate it in their new engines. (who knows?) Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation vs Automobile Engines
Date: Dec 19, 1999
> > The whole expensive certification process has largely killed the > innovation in the aircraft engine industry. > Frank. I believe it is a major factor. One on the hp hindrances in aircraft engines are the cylinder heads. On an O-200 for example, the round intake pulse becomes rectangular as it runs through the transition tube into the cylinder head, then becomes round again. This was done for space, not power. On the same engine, I discovered that the ports were too large for the RPM/Disp. By strategically reforming the ports with epoxy, and flowing with smaller intake and exhaust valves, the flow increased. Dyno showed a 6.7 hp increase. This is with the factory camshaft and springs. Now the factory could have easily done the same, if they did the research, but then........... re-certification. Archie Archie's Racing Service ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RobertR237(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 20, 1999
Subject: Re: lists
In a message dated 12/19/99 8:41:11 PM Central Standard Time, archie97(at)earthlink.net writes: > > > Now I ask you, Did I find a WINNER or what? Now if I could just find the > > right engine for my KIS Cruiser project I would have it made. > > > > Bob Reed > > You have done well, Bob. > Try rotaryeng(at)earthlink.net > Paul, the moderator, is planning a rotary > implant in his KIS. What other engine will > give you 2hp/cu.in. with no mods? > Archie > > Yes, I am aware of that and have had a few discussions with Paul. You will find links to my web site on his and likewise a link to his site on mine. I am still considering the rotary for my installation but would prefer the three rotor from the Mazda 20B if I am going that route. There still seem to be far more problems with the rotary than I would like to have to address. My technical abilities in the engine area are far too limited for me to attempt the conversion on my own. I still have some time to make the decision so I hope to see more of the rotary engines in the air. Hopefully Paul will be able to lead the way. We will see. Bob Reed http://robertr237.virtualave.net/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 1999
From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: Mattituck FADEC & XP-360
Yes, please e-mail me or post a copy of your article. I may be unfortunate for Mattituck/Superior's XP-360 program that Continental may want Mattituck to refocus to Continental engines. The Lycoming-derived XP-360 has been promised for about three years now - first through XP Industries and then through Mattituck. At first Mattituck mentioned 12/99 as the date of availability of the XP-360. Now they're saying ~06/00, and they're saying it will not be available as a kit as first promised, but will be available only as a complete engine. I'd prefer to buy the kit and have it assembled/modified by an outfit such as Lycon. -Vaso > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Archie > Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 7:17 PM > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Aviation vs Automobile Engines > > Vaso, > I think your message was "right on". If you have not read my article > on the M/A FADEC system, I can e-mail you a copy. It is short, but > informative. Since Continental bought them out, they may incorporate > it in their new engines. (who knows?) > Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 1999
From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: Aviation Engines on Unleaded Gasoline ?
What precisely prevents aviation engines such as the Lycoming IO-360 from running on unleaded gas ? If I remember correctly, when lead was taken out of mogas, the fear was that cylinder values on older engines depended on lead for lubrication. Is that so ? What else in aviation engines depends on lead in gasoline (assuming octane rating could be maintained in other ways) ? If exhaust (?) intake (?) valves were improved, could aviation engines - at least for experimental aircraft use - be run on unleaded mogas with better long-term reliability ? -Vaso ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 1999
From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: Aviation vs Automobile Engines
Archie: What else have you done to improve your aviation engine ? No doubt you've seen Kent' Passer's book - "Speed with Economy" - in which he makes specific recommendations for engine efficiency improvements. What do you think of his suggestions ? -Vaso > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Archie > Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 7:49 PM > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Aviation vs Automobile Engines > ...One on the hp hindrances in aircraft engines are the > cylinder heads. > On an O-200 for example, the round intake pulse > becomes rectangular as it runs through the transition > tube into the cylinder head, then becomes round again. > This was done for space, not power. > On the same engine, I discovered that the ports were > too large for the RPM/Disp. By strategically reforming > the ports with epoxy, and flowing with smaller intake > and exhaust valves, the flow increased. Dyno showed > a 6.7 hp increase. This is with the factory camshaft > and springs. Now the factory could have easily done > the same, if they did the research, but then........... > re-certification. > Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 1999
From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: 190/200hp IO-360 ? How to get there ?
I'm looking for comments on the course of action detailed below. I'm building a Glastar. I'm looking to install an engine of ~190/200hp fitting the standard Dynafocal engine mount sold for the Glastar. The easiest way would be to buy a new IO-360, Apparently, the IO-360 sold by Lycoming today is a 200hp angle-value engine having an outrageous $30K+ price tag. Ideally, I would like to end up with an IO-360, with Airflow Performance fuel injection, single Lightspeed ignition (plus single mag), with optimized intake and exhaust. The question is how to get there from here. My current thought is to buy a run-out O-360 and have it rebuilt by one of the better shops - such as Lycon. First question: Should I start with a parallel or angled valve O-360 ? I'm told the angle-valve runs rougher and is more highly stressed (for a given horsepower output) than a parallel value engine. On the other hand, I'm told the angle-value engine is easier to optimize - partly due to its value configuration. Comments ? This is my current thinking: *1 Start with first run-out O-360 (actual type depends on decision to go with QCS "fixed" prop or Whirlwind/MT C/S prop). *2 Aim for mild hp increase, but significant specific fuel consumption improvement. *3 Allow Lycon (or other shop) to procure run-out engine, to avoid charge-backs *4 Insist on New Limits except for parts that can safely be recycled at Service Limits *5 Insist that shop follows Lycoming's Mandatory Replacement Bulletin(s) (S.B 240) at minimum. *6 Have shop do work on "TBO Upgraded" basis where possible. *7 Install new pistons with ~9.5:1 compression ratio *8 Install roller tip rockers *9 Allow PMA - rather than OEM - parts where better or equivalent *10 Pay for tight dynamic balancing *11 Pay for flow-balancing *12 Pay for Porting & Polishing *13 Install Ney nozzles *14 Pay for optimized choke on cylinder barrel *15 Pay for grouping of lifters/tappets by bleed-down rate *16 Pay for extra attention to main bearing clearances *17 Request ECI's IFR "Freedom" processing of crankcase *18 Request black phosphate coating on cams and tappets *19 Allow regrinding of tappets *20 Change to adjustable ball-spring oil pressure relief valve *21 Change to new style vernatherm oil bypass valve *22 Prefer CermiNil over CermiChrome *23 Install venturi-style intake valve seat if possible *24 Pay for back-cut, triple-grinding and hand-lapping of valves *25 Pay for hone finish on valve guides *26 Leave cylinders unpainted *27 Install Gamijectors or pay for injection matching *28 Install Airflow Performance Fuel Injection *30 Install Lightspeed ignition *31 Install Maxi-Sump ? SkyDynamics sells this low-weight (magnesium) sump and cold air induction system that claims to reduce weight by 10lb+, and increases horsepower on an IO-360. Cost is $2K+. *32 Tuned exhaust ? Power Flow Systems (PFS) claims an eyebrow-raising 10-15% increase in effective power output from a Lycoming O-320. Lycon says they verified this power increase on their test cell. The PFS exhaust is expensive - ~$2K+. *33 Pre-Oiler ? *34 Remote Oil filter ? Airwolf ? B&C ? *35 Starter: B&C ? *36 Alternator: B&C ? Comments on any of the above points welcomed. -Vaso ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation Engines on Unleaded Gasoline ?
Date: Dec 20, 1999
> > What precisely prevents aviation engines such as the Lycoming IO-360 from > running on unleaded gas ? If I remember correctly, when lead was taken out > of mogas, the fear was that cylinder values on older engines depended on > lead for lubrication. Is that so ? What else in aviation engines depends > on lead in gasoline (assuming octane rating could be maintained in other > ways) ? If exhaust (?) intake (?) valves were improved, could aviation > engines - at least for experimental aircraft use - be run on unleaded mogas > with better long-term reliability ? > > -Vaso I have converted an number of automotive engines for unleaded running, but no aircraft. The valve area is it. Basically, a good grade stainless valve, and a premium hard seat, with bronzanium based valve guides does it. Also, a propane fueled engine should not require mods, these are already incorporated. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation vs Automobile Engines
Date: Dec 20, 1999
> > Archie: > > What else have you done to improve your aviation engine ? No doubt you've > seen Kent' Passer's book - "Speed with Economy" - in which he makes specific > recommendations for engine efficiency improvements. What do you think of his > suggestions ? > > -Vaso No, Vaso I have not read (completely) Kent's book. I work with engines primarily. Have performed surgery on these heads to the point of cutting into the valve cover, and reworking it for pipe and port modifications. None of these are flying, just R&D work. Some people, after seeing standard aircraft engine configurations, would, perhaps be frightened of such a sight. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 1999
From: "Joseph V. Bienkowski" <jbienkowski(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Aviation Engines on Unleaded Gasoline ?
Well, back in 1986 when I purchased my TriPacer, N2930P, my FIRST purchase was the Auto Fuel STC from Peterson. Absolutely the best $75 I ever spent! Thus far I can account for something in excess of 1500 hrs on unleaded car gas. I have seen NO problems due to the auto fuel. When I have gotten "stuck" in the field and have had to purchase the occasional tank of 100LL, I am of the definite opinion that the engine did NOT run as well as on the auto fuel. I did the major overhaul at 2439 TTSN due to a camshaft that had lost lift on two lobes. My experience is easier cold starts, smoother operation and NO lead to foul the spark plugs! Note this is on the O-320 which is an 80/87 octane engine, so the octane of available auto fuel was never a problem. So the question that Vaso asks is simply a question of octane and glorious FAA paper work! The airframe mod to 30P consisted of new stickers to apply at each fuel filling port. The engine mod was a numbered band to go around a push rod tube to identify the STC number! Yeah, the FAA DOES consider these "modifications"! Ha, 30P only knew that the engine ran better without the lead! Joe Bienkowski, N2930P, Muncie, IN --------- Vaso Bovan wrote: > > What precisely prevents aviation engines such as the Lycoming IO-360 from > running on unleaded gas ? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com>
Subject: Aviation vs Automobile Engines
Date: Dec 20, 1999
> > Vaso, > I think your message was "right on". --snip-- Archie: Isn't it true that some of the limitations of Lycomings and Continentals are a direct result of being air cooled? As soon as emissions and fuel consumption became a major concern in cars, all the air cooled engines either disappeared or, at least, got liquid-cooled heads. And anywhere high performance is important--motocross bikes and snowmobiles, for example--liquid cooling is now the norm. I can see that hot spots, leading to pre-ignition, would be less of a problem with liquid-cooled heads. But are there other factors, too? > If you have not read my article on the M/A FADEC > system, I can e-mail you a copy. I'd like to read it. Would you email me a copy? Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 1999
From: Dan Exstrom <exstromb(at)onlinemac.com>
Subject: Engine swaps
Can someone tell me what the process is with the FAA for replacing an engine in a certified aircraft (Spam can) with a non-certified auto engine? I have heard of such aircraft then being in the "experimental" category but how is the 51% rule met? Is that possible only when other rebuilding occurs on the aircraft? Happy holidays to all, Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com>
Subject: Buick 3.8 -based conversion
Date: Dec 20, 1999
I posted this to rec.aviation.homebuilt last week and got some interesting replies. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC --- After looking at a lot of different auto engine conversion concepts, this is the one that appeals most to me. Because it seems to be quite different from what most people are doing, I'm interested in getting other people's ideas on the viability of the concept. My idea is hardly new. It's a revision of the idea Steve Wittman had many years ago: a standard auto engine, inverted so that it can be used direct drive. The engine that appears most suitable is the Buick 90-degree V6. Here's the whole package, as I envision it. Application: RV-6 (or other homebuilt designed for 150-180 hp Lycoming). Configuration: inverted, direct drive (per Steve Wittman conversion). Parts & Dimensions: block Buick Stage II On-Center bore 4.000" stroke 3.625" (even fire) displacement 273 ci heads Buick Stage II (aluminum) intake Buick NASCAR (for low-RPM torque) carburetion Ellison throttle-body injector ignition electronic of some type oiling dry sump invertable Performance Estimate: torque 250-275 ft-lb power 150-170 hp @ 3250 RPM Why inverted? The prop shaft has to be in the position that the airframe design calls for. That means either offsetting it from the crankshaft with a (reduction) drive, or using direct drive. The Wittman direct drive uses the stock bellhousing, with a custom bearing to hold the prop. This has two big advantages: it's cheaper than a reduction drive, and it isolates non-torsional prop loads from the crankshaft. Why direct drive? A reduction drive would allow the engine to rev higher, producing more horespower per pound of engine. But it has two drawbacks. First, the re-drive itself is fairly expensive. But my main concern is engine life. I'm aiming for operating conditions similar to what the engine designers might have planned for. As a reference point, the RPM and power I'm aiming for give cylinder pressures and piston speeds that are lower than what a Lycoming experiences. (Piston accelerations would be slightly higher.) Another idea I'm considering is using a torque converter. While this adds weight and cost, it has the very significant advantage of isolating the prop from crankshaft torsional vibrations. It would also probably make it possible to use the stock automatic transmission input shaft as a prop shaft. Is 3250 RPM too high for direct drive? Well, 3250 RPM is a WAG. The VW conversions spin wood props at those kinds of RPMs, so it's clearly viable. But I expect it to be a compromise. That is, I expect prop efficiency will be less than at 2700 RPM. The RPM and airspeed combination is pretty uncommon, so a custom prop would probaly be required. For cost, that means a wood prop. I'm planning to use a wood prop anyway, so that's not a compromise. The prop diameter would have to be limited to 58-60 inches. Perhaps a three-blade prop would be necessary. Any prop experts have suggestions? Why the Buick? The Buick engine is compact and, for a water-cooled, iron-block engine, relatively light. Many race-proven parts are available at reasonable prices. (Though, at 3250 RPM, only the bottom end will be highly stressed.) Stock induction and camshaft combinations produce good torque in appropriate RPM range. It is designed for a bore and stroke combination that can give adequate power at RPMs low enough to allow direct drive. The Chevy 90-degree V6 is heavier and larger. In a 4x4 (301 ci) configuration, it would be suitable for applications requiring more power (~200 hp). But it's probably too much engine for airframes designed for O-320s or O-360s. I don't see any point using a smaller displacement version--you'd just be carrying weight you don't need. Aluminum blocks are available, but expensive. I don't know much about the Ford 3.8 V6 but, at the stock displacement, it would not produce adequate power for a direct-drive installation (130-145 hp @ 3250 RPM). Does anyone know if larger displacements are available with off-the-shelf components? How does its weight compare to the Buick? Everything else I've looked at is either too small, too big, or too expensive. (The Rover 4.6 V8 is expensive, and heavier than the Buick). The Mazdo rotary wouldn't allow direct drive. (Although otherwise I think it's an excellent candidate. Doesn't sound as good as a V6, though, to my ear.) Why the Ellison injector? This is not an area I've put a lot of though into, yet. There are many ways to get the fuel into the air. For simplicity, I thought I'd stick with something proven. (Yes, I realize that, from the point of view of those not enthusiastic about auto-engine conversions, this is a contradiction. Everyone has to draw the lines. This is one of mine, at the moment.) Why a dry sump? Wittman's conversion didn't use a dry sump, so far as I know. But his design doesn't seem to have much of an advantage over a dry sump--not even cost. Wittman used a remote sump, which the rocker-cover sumps drained into. It looks to me as though it wouldn't take much more effort to just build a dry sump system. The dry sump would be easier to make invertable, which is a feature I'd like to have. Where do the power estimates come from? Pretty much out of thin air. Almost all naturally-aspirated engines produce somewhere around 0.9 to 1.1 ft-lbs per cubic inch. I think 1.1 is optimistic, for a two-valve, wedge-head engine. So I've assumed torque between 0.9 and 1.0 ft-lbs per cubic inch. As a reference point, O-3x0 Lycomings produce about 0.9 ft-lbs per cubic inch. The power is simply derived from the torque and RPM. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Engine swaps
Date: Dec 20, 1999
> > Can someone tell me what the process is with the FAA for replacing an > engine in a certified aircraft (Spam can) with a non-certified auto engine? > I have heard of such aircraft then being in the "experimental" category > but how is the 51% rule met? Is that possible only when other rebuilding > occurs on the aircraft? > > Happy holidays to all, > > Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR Dan, You are not building an aircraft here, so the 51% rule does not exist. When installing an engine not on the TCDS, but certificated, it is considered an airframe mod, and requires an FAA337 form at the minimum. Your auto engine will convert the aircraft to experimental. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 21, 1999
From: Frank and Dorothy <frankvdh(at)ihug.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Aviation Engines on Unleaded Gasoline ?
Vaso Bovan wrote: > What precisely prevents aviation engines such as the Lycoming IO-360 from > running on unleaded gas ? We've recently (a few years ago) gone through this. Until then, here in New Zealand we had largish amounts of lead in all automobile fuels. That's almost all gone now. Older engines (and NZ does have a fairly aged automobile fleet) require lead to lubricate the valves, otherwise you get something called 'valve seat recession'. Owners of older cars with soft valve seats (mostly pre-1985) can buy a product called 'Valvemaster' which you squirt into your petrol tank each time you fill up to prevent this. The stuff sells for about NZ$1 (US$.50) per 'squirt'. Incidentally, there were *numerous* problems with the new fuel destroying O-rings and fuel lines. To raise the octane rating, more 'organics' (benzine, toluene, etc) were included in the mix. These organics, in hogh concentrations, attack rubber. This problem was first noticed on a homebuilt aircraft running mogas... our CAA banned mogas for some aircraft use for some time until it was all sorted out. Frank. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 1999
From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: Volkswagen VR-6, 2.8L, 175hp Conversion
One engine that I haven't seen discussed as a possible conversion is the Volkswagen water-cooled narrow-angle VR-6, 2.8L, ~175hp@5,800rpm, 173lb-ft@4,200rpm. This is an unusual engine with both cylinder "banks" at a 15 degree angle under a single head. It was originally designed to fit into spaces normally occupied by a 4-cylinder engine. An aftermarket supercharger is now available. Yes, a 2:1 drive would be necessary. -Vaso ps: Let's establish "lb-ft" as the standard designation for torque on this list (unless we boldly adopt the Newton-metre). "ft-lb" in incorrect, and grating. > I posted this to rec.aviation.homebuilt last week and got some interesting > replies. > Tedd McHenry, Surrey, BC > > block Buick Stage II On-Center > bore 4.000" > stroke 3.625" (even fire) > displacement 273 ci > heads Buick Stage II (aluminum) > intake Buick NASCAR (for low-RPM torque) > carburetion Ellison throttle-body injector > ignition electronic of some type > oiling dry sump invertable > > Performance Estimate: > > torque 250-275 ft-lb > power 150-170 hp @ 3250 RPM > > The Buick engine is compact and, for a water-cooled, iron-block engine, > relatively light. Many race-proven parts are available at reasonable > prices. (Though, at 3250 RPM, only the bottom end will be highly > stressed.) Stock induction and camshaft combinations produce good > torque in appropriate RPM range. It is designed for a bore and stroke > combination that can give adequate power at RPMs low enough to allow > direct drive. > > The Chevy 90-degree V6 is heavier and larger. In a 4x4 (301 ci) > configuration, it would be suitable for applications requiring more > power (~200 hp). But it's probably too much engine for airframes > designed for O-320s or O-360s. I don't see any point using a smaller > displacement version--you'd just be carrying weight you don't need. > Aluminum blocks are available, but expensive. > > I don't know much about the Ford 3.8 V6 but, at the stock displacement, > it would not produce adequate power for a direct-drive installation > (130-145 hp @ 3250 RPM). Does anyone know if larger displacements are > available with off-the-shelf components? How does its weight compare to > the Buick? > > Everything else I've looked at is either too small, too big, or too > expensive. (The Rover 4.6 V8 is expensive, and heavier than the > Buick). The Mazdo rotary wouldn't allow direct drive. (Although > otherwise I think it's an excellent candidate. Doesn't sound as good as > a V6, though, to my ear.) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com>
Subject: Volkswagen VR-6, 2.8L, 175hp Conversion
Date: Dec 20, 1999
> > One engine that I haven't seen discussed as a possible > conversion is the > Volkswagen water-cooled narrow-angle VR-6, 2.8L That engine interests me, too. I'd like to see what it weighs. After owning a Jetta for 300,000+ km, I'm a fan. VW engines are easy to work on, and seem very stout. The price of parts can be a shock, but there's lots of aftermarket stuff available. I'm not sure how good the aftermarket is for the VR-6. It still seems a little small, though, to me. If I was looking for 125 hp, it might be good. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert Burns" <hsierra(at)flash.net>
Subject: Re: Engine swaps
Date: Dec 20, 1999
the aircraft is under experimental, research and development, not experimental amateur, the 51% rule does not apply. however, the experimental R&D category has more restrictions on flight. R. Burns RV-4 S/n 3524 N82RB >> Can someone tell me what the process is with the FAA for snip snip >> but how is the 51% rule met? Is that possible only when other rebuilding >> occurs on the aircraft? >> >> Happy holidays to all, >> >> Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 1999
From: Arthur Glaser <airplane(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: Re: Engine swaps
Dan Exstrom wrote: > > Can someone tell me what the process is with the FAA for replacing an > engine in a certified aircraft (Spam can) with a non-certified auto engine? > I have heard of such aircraft then being in the "experimental" category > but how is the 51% rule met? Is that possible only when other rebuilding > occurs on the aircraft? > > Happy holidays to all, > > Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR Dan, I believe you will be placed in a different "experimental category". Homebuilts are for education and recreation and have a broad set of operating limitations. You may be limited as to your flight operations. Dave Blanton used to advocate putting his Ford V6 in a modified Piper TriPacer airframe. I am not sure as to how much this was modified, nor am I cognizant of the operating limitations. Best to check with the Fed. Good Luck, Art Glaser ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 1999
From: "Joseph V. Bienkowski" <jbienkowski(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Engine swaps
Dave Blanton's plans for his TriPacer mod was in fact an FAA approved homebuilt aircraft by the time you were finished! You had to lengthen the main wing something like 24" on each side and then you did a fuselage stretch. After this recover and it was now a homebuilt aircraft! Best, Joe Bienkowski, N2930P, '55 Piper PA22-150 Arthur Glaser wrote: > > > Dan Exstrom wrote: > > > > > Can someone tell me what the process is with the FAA for replacing an > > engine in a certified aircraft (Spam can) with a non-certified auto engine? > > I have heard of such aircraft then being in the "experimental" category > > but how is the 51% rule met? Is that possible only when other rebuilding > > occurs on the aircraft? > > > > Happy holidays to all, > > > > Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR > > Dan, I believe you will be placed in a different "experimental category". > Homebuilts are for education and recreation and have a broad set of operating > limitations. You may be limited as to your flight operations. Dave Blanton > used to advocate putting his Ford V6 in a modified Piper TriPacer airframe. I > am not sure as to how much this was modified, nor am I cognizant of the > operating limitations. > Best to check with the Fed. > > Good Luck, > > Art Glaser > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 1999
From: n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com>
Subject: Re: 190/200hp IO-360 ? How to get there ?
It was my understanding that the intake thru the oil sump reduced carb icing. Extra hp won't do too much if the carb is frozen up. I have had excellent service out of my Samuri alternator. Straight from the junk yard, no overhaul, $60. With my O-320 I figure it spins at 10,000 rpm at cruise. 450+ hrs later no problems. I did give it a blast tube. IMHO it does strike me that you are attempting to make a Corvette out of a Caprice. If the Glastar is anything like the RV, my guess is you won't be happy with all that extra work vs the standard set-up. ---------- > From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Engines-List: 190/200hp IO-360 ? How to get there ? > Date: Monday, December 20, 1999 5:09 AM > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 21, 1999
From: Alan Cox <alancox(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation vs Automobile Engines
I'd like to have a copy also, Archie. Thanks, Alan Cox Tedd McHenry wrote: > > > > > Vaso, > > I think your message was "right on". > --snip-- > > Archie: > > Isn't it true that some of the limitations of Lycomings and Continentals are > a direct result of being air cooled? As soon as emissions and fuel > consumption became a major concern in cars, all the air cooled engines > either disappeared or, at least, got liquid-cooled heads. And anywhere high > performance is important--motocross bikes and snowmobiles, for > example--liquid cooling is now the norm. > > I can see that hot spots, leading to pre-ignition, would be less of a > problem with liquid-cooled heads. But are there other factors, too? > > > If you have not read my article on the M/A FADEC > > system, I can e-mail you a copy. > > I'd like to read it. Would you email me a copy? > > Tedd McHenry > Surrey, BC > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: 190/200hp IO-360 ? How to get there ?
Date: Dec 21, 1999
> It was my understanding that the intake thru the oil sump reduced carb > icing. Extra hp won't do too much if the carb is frozen up. Carb icing takes place in the venturi of the carb, long before the sump. If carb icing is the issue, go to fuel injection. Even better, go to a timed, pulsed injection system and join the 20th century. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 1999
From: Mark Wood <mawood(at)zoo.uvm.edu>
Subject: Re:EA 81 Vs EA 82 Vs Corvair Vs Honda
>> Is there anyone besides me on this list? >> -- >> Britt > Ya I'm here too. And as long as I'm putting a note up let me ask a question. I would like to build a safe, light, low cost 100Hp to 115Hp engine for my Zenair 601. As of now my list is made up of EA 81 Vs EA 82 Vs Corvair Vs Honda. I would love to have people out there share information and ideas. Thanks Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 1999
From: Dan Exstrom <exstromb(at)onlinemac.com>
Subject: Re:EA 81 Vs EA 82 Vs Corvair Vs Honda
Zenair 601. As >of now my list is made up of EA 81 Vs EA 82 Vs Corvair Vs Honda. I would >love to have people out there share information and ideas. Mark, I too am building a Zodiac 601 (hopefully the XL) and decided on the Corvair for the following reasons: 1. Air-cooled (no plumbing, less things to go wrong) 2. 100-110hp at good rpm (the 'Vair lopes along at 3100-3300 rpm doesn't even begin to get stressed like a VW, etc.) 3. Direct drive, again, simpler & fewer things to go wrong. (Check the archives for the story of an EA-81 reduction belt breaking on take off) 4. Inexpensive & readily available. 'Vair lovers carpet the country and have everything you would need to care for the engine. You could rebuild a 110hp 'Vair engine ready to hang on the firewall for ~$2,500, compared to twice that for a Stratus Subaru. The Jabiru 3300 is almost 5 times that! 5. Lots of good advice out there for the 'Vair, especially William Wynne's manual. http://www.omnispace.com/Corvair/infopack.htm 6. The 'Vair looks to be a wee bit lighter than the Subarus once installed and flying. 7. Six cylinders beats 4 for smoothness. FWIW, that's my impression of the EA81, Honda & Corvair options. Dan Exstrom ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 1999
From: Mark Wood <mawood(at)zoo.uvm.edu>
Subject: Re: EA 81 Vs Covair
Dan Thanks for the feedback. The Covair is also #1 on my list. I do however have some questions. I have sent for William Wynnes book but do not have it yet, so the answers may be in the book. However do you know What size prop you can turn at 3100 RPM? What kind of static thrust can you produce? What kind of numbers does the Corvair put out in a 601? Thanks Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com>
Subject: Volkswagen VR-6, 2.8L, 175hp Conversion
Date: Dec 23, 1999
> > ps: Let's establish "lb-ft" as the standard designation for > torque on this > list (unless we boldly adopt the Newton-metre). "ft-lb" in > incorrect, and > grating. Vaso: On what basis? Neither Oxford nor Webster's list "pound-feet," though both list "foot-pounds." Given that multiplication is commutative, "ft-lb" has the same meaning as "lb-ft." The verbal expression is "foot-pounds," as supported by dictionaries on both sides of the Atlantic. Therefore, "ft-lb" is not only acceptable, it is preferable, particularly in casual writing (such as email). Tedd (mechanical engineer, technical writer, and amateur linguist) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 1999
From: Dan Exstrom <exstromb(at)onlinemac.com>
Subject: Re: EA 81 Vs Covair
>However do you know >What size prop you can turn at 3100 RPM? >What kind of static thrust can you produce? >What kind of numbers does the Corvair put out in a 601? Mark, I am not aware of any 601 flying with the Corvair engine, I haven't checked with Wynne about prop sizes, I plan to build the tail dragger model so I don't expect prop clearance to be a problem. I hope to get some of these type questions answered at the Laughlin, NV show in February. Wynne is planning to fly his Pietenpol out and hold some engine discussions for those interested. Have a great holiday season, Dan Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 1999
From: Jim and Lucy <jpollard(at)mnsi.net>
Subject: Re: EA 81 Vs Covair
Mark There is a fellow near me that had a corvair in an aircraft very simular to a 601. I dont think he was very satisfied with it due to cooling problems. He now has a turbo ea81 is his plane. His name is Jim Mantyla" and he is on the airsoob email list. You could email him and he could tell you about it.Good and bad. Jim Pollard ch601 ea81 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug" <ve6zh(at)oanet.com>
Subject: Re: EA 81 Vs Covair
Date: Dec 24, 1999
Engines-List message posted by: Mark Wood What kind of static thrust can you produce? Mark,i don't know what others are seeing for thrust,but here is what i measured on mine; 2500'elevation 140hp engine direct drive 2-stock carbs on heads,other 2 ports blocked 60" 3 blade warpdrive prop,think it is set at 7deg. points ignition tail tied to a hydraulic cylinder(3")with a test gauge full throttle 3000rpm static,indicated 360# not including what it takes to overcome the movement of the airplane and man dose it sound SWEET! Doug Hunt C-GCGJ (HOPE to be flying this spring) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 1999
From: "Gene Tomblin" <tombling(at)mercyships.org>
Subject: Re: Engine Monitor Systems
I know more than I'd like to about Ford 3.8 L V6's The 4.2 L V6 used in the newer F150's is the same as the old 3.8 except for the stroke and a slighly different bore. The 4.2 's are all ready being converted . They would seem like the best Ford V6 for an aero conversion because they produce better low end torque than the 3.8 does because they have a longer stroke. 3.8's have viberation problems. Ford needed a quick and cheep ie no engineering time V6 for the Mustang II. The 3.8 is a 302 minus the back two cylinders and it runs just like a V8 minus two cylinders. In 1987 Ford fitted the 3.8 with a counterbalencer shaft which is driven of the cam and sets in the valley above the cam and lifters. The head design on the 3.8/4.2 Fords was barrowed from the 351 clevland V8. This means it has better flow than the 302/ 5.0L V8's , it also means there isn't a lot you can do to the top end to increase HP. I ported and polished the 3.8 in my Thunderbird and installed an aftermarket hydrolic cam . The engine performs better than stock but the HP increase is all up on the top end so I did not get the beter drivabilit I was really looking for. The best 3.8's I believe are the ones in Windstar vans they have a multi port variable tuned intake system . It helps out both on the top end and down where the engine can really use some help. The manifold, with it's dual intake runners for each cylinder, is so tall that the only thing it will fit into is the Windstar van . The 3.8 is still the base engine in the Mustang and the block was stiffened up a year or two ago to help with the inharent vibration problms of the design . The strongest 3.8's by far are the suprcharged ones used in the Thunderbird Super Coups and Cougar XR7's between 89 and about 93. These engines really run and the bottom end is very strong. I have seen time slips from Tbirds and Cougars with 1/4 mile ET's in the low 14's with supercharged 3.8's with only a few mods, shorty headers and 10% overdrive pullies on the supercharger. The bad side of the 3.8/4.2 Ford V6's is that there is very littly that you can do to them without spending huge ammounts of money . The normal bolt on stuff just isn't available for them You can barrow a few things fron the 5.0 V8 the rocker arms are the same and buying a set of roler rockers for a 5.0 and using only 12 of the 16 will get you a set of better rockers . The oil pump is also the same but because it's cast into the front cover on the V6's you can't use the high volume pums for the V8's on theV6's The other thing is the weight these engines have an iron block and aluminum heads and intake manafold and weigh about 600 pounds dry. They also have a bad habit of blowing head gaskets. These engines have a reputation of running a long long time in cars probibly because of their V8 heritage. The one in by TBird had over 150,000 on it when I rebuilt it and it wasn't too bad although I dont think the rear main and the rod bearings on 3 and 6 had much time left in them. I'd like to see how a aero conversion of the 3.8 runs with regard to vibration . There a definite RPM's where these engines vibrate because of their V8 minus 2 configuration. If I were doing one I'd find a 87 or later block with the balencer shaft. I want to do a Corvair conversion direct drive for a Pietnpol project any words of wisdom. I'd like to do away with the fan and shroud and use a presure cowling for the cylinders and oil cooler and use J3 style bat ear cowls for the heads which will stick out beyond the fuselage. Gene ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 1999
From: "Kilby, Roger" <Roger.Kilby(at)GSC.GTE.Com>
Subject: Rotax 912
<5DD592B8031BD111A0D200805FC11D020317B401(at)chnt10.winnt.chnt.gsc.gte.com> I am installing a 912 in a Zenith 601. The carb. overflow lines will drain right on top of the exhaust. It has been suggested to use a "drip pan". Any hints/ideas here are appreciated. Also, I have seen one 912 with an "intake silencer" attached to the carbs. What is this for? Thanks. Roger ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 28, 1999
From: Dave <doitdave(at)netscape.net>
Subject: Re: EA 81 Vs Covair]
I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but I do believe that the size of the prop is determined by the area it will be running in and the tip speed. The tip speed should be no more than .8 mach, which at 3100 rpm the diameter should be 64 inches maximum. The pitch of the prop is determined by the power available which I'm sure you already know. I'm not much help with the Corvair engine. sorry. Happy flying in the New Year Dave Dan Exstrom wrote: >However do you know >What size prop you can turn at 3100 RPM? >What kind of static thrust can you produce? >What kind of numbers does the Corvair put out in a 601? Mark, I am not aware of any 601 flying with the Corvair engine, I haven't checked with Wynne about prop sizes, I plan to build the tail dragger model so I don't expect prop clearance to be a problem. I hope to get some of these type questions answered at the Laughlin, NV show in February. Wynne is planning to fly his Pietenpol out and hold some engine discussions for those interested. Have a great holiday season, Dan Dan Exstrom McMinnville, OR Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 1999
From: "Gene Tomblin" <tombling(at)mercyships.org>
Subject: Re:Laughlin fly-in ?
Hello everyone, A day or two ago I saw mention of a gathering in Laughlin Nevada mentioned either on the Pietenpol or engines list I made a mental note of this because William Wynne was supposed to be their with his Piet and I would like to talk to him . Does anyone know about a Fly-in in Laughlin Nevada. I have checked the EAA site and a few other air show web sites with no luck. Gene Tomblin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MSnook(at)micro.honeywell.com (Snook, Michael)
Date: Jan 03, 2000
Subject: ft-lb vs. lb-ft (was Volkswagen VR-6, 2
Because work (force times a distance) and torque (force times a moment-arm) can both share the same units (ft-lb), the term "lb-ft" is sometimes used to distinguish torque from work when referring to that measure. FWIW, I looked-up the word "foot-pound" in an American Heritage dictionary. "Foot-pound" was defined as work, bla, bla, bla... but no mention of torque. "Pound-foot" was not included in the dictionary (along with many other technical terms) and the definition for "torque" did not include any units. I also looked at the conversion tables in my pocket reference. According to it, "foot-pounds" converts directly into units of work - Ergs, Joules, Kw-hours, etc., but "pound-feet" converts only to "Cm-dynes", "Cm-grams", and "Meter-Kilograms". What's all this mean? Probably not a hill-o-beans as long as confusion over what is being discussed -torque or work- is avoided during casual conversation. Personally, I like "ft-lb" for work and "lb-ft" for torque but tend to use "ft-lb of torque" like everyone else. ;-) Mike Snook Allen, TX -----Original Message----- From: engines-list [SMTP:engines-list(at)matronics.com] Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 3:27 PM Subject: RE: Engines-List: Volkswagen VR-6, 2.8L > > ps: Let's establish "lb-ft" as the standard designation for > torque on this > list (unless we boldly adopt the Newton-metre). "ft-lb" in > incorrect, and > grating. Vaso: On what basis? Neither Oxford nor Webster's list "pound-feet," though both list "foot-pounds." Given that multiplication is commutative, "ft-lb" has the same meaning as "lb-ft." The verbal expression is "foot-pounds," as supported by dictionaries on both sides of the Atlantic. Therefore, "ft-lb" is not only acceptable, it is preferable, particularly in casual writing (such as email). Tedd (mechanical engineer, technical writer, and amateur linguist) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 04, 2000
From: Mark Wood <mawood(at)zoo.uvm.edu>
Subject: Re: EA 81 Vs Covair]
> I do believe that the size of the >prop is determined by the area it will be running in and the tip speed. The >tip speed should be no more than .8 mach, which at 3100 rpm the diameter >should be 64 inches maximum. > >Happy flying in the New Year > >Dave > >Dan Exstrom wrote: This is some info I needed, Thanks. When doing the math for the tip speed do you use only the rotational speed or do you also need to figure in the forward speed of the plane? Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com>
Subject: Re: EA 81 Vs Covair]
Date: Jan 04, 2000
> > This is some info I needed, Thanks. > When doing the math for the tip speed do you use only the > rotational speed > or do you also need to figure in the forward speed of the plane? > Mark Mark: I don't know what the standard procedure is, but factoring in the forward speed does make a difference. You have to use the vector sum of the rotational speed and the forward speed. Here's an example. RPM 3100 ktas 150 OAT -20C Vcrit 1047 ft/s max dia 62 inches (RPM only) max dia 59 inches (RPM and forward speed) Tedd ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 04, 2000
From: Dave <doitdave(at)netscape.net>
Subject: Re: EA 81 Vs Covair]]
Mark, The rotational speed of the prop is the main concern here for determining the tip speed. Another point to consider is the shape of the airfoil which factors into the maximum tip speed (critical mach). The pitch of the prop is determined by the speed of the aircraft (climb or cruise?) and the available power. The difference between a two bladed and a three bladed prop, on small airplanes, is largly determined by the marketing department. I hope this will help you. Dave Mark Wood wrote: > I do believe that the size of the >prop is determined by the area it will be running in and the tip speed. The >tip speed should be no more than .8 mach, which at 3100 rpm the diameter >should be 64 inches maximum. > >Happy flying in the New Year > >Dave > >Dan Exstrom wrote: This is some info I needed, Thanks. When doing the math for the tip speed do you use only the rotational speed or do you also need to figure in the forward speed of the plane? Mark Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2000
From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/06/00
Is there anyone in the Spartanburg, SC area that has a Subaru installation on their airplane that I can take a look at? Specifically the EJ22? Thanks Rich Bauer Zenith CH-801 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 1998
From: "James F. Cooper" <blugoos1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: terminate subscription
Please end my subscription to Engines-List-Digest. Thank you, Jim Cooper ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Bertrand" <cgbrt(at)mondenet.com>
Subject: Fw: Rotax 912 oil press problems
Date: Jan 14, 2000
---------- > From: Carl Bertrand <cgbrt(at)mondenet.com> > To: engines-liste(at)matronics.com > Subject: Fw: Rotax 912 oil press problems > Date: January 13, 2000 6:22 PM > > > > ---------- > > From: Carl Bertrand <cgbrt(at)mondenet.com> > > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Rotax 912 oil press problems > > Date: January 13, 2000 6:16 PM > > > > I have operated a 912 for the last 4 years without serious problems. When > > new, the oil press fluctuated 2-3lbs at high power setting but remained > in > > the 58-60lbs. I was informed by a Rotax rep that fluctuations are normal > > for my series engine. > > Starting 5 months ago the oil press at cruise decreased from the usual > > 60lbs to 40lbs over a periode of 12 hrs. I have done the obvious thing > like > > check all the lines, changed oil, filter, oil gauge and sender, rotor and > > piston in the pump, the relief valve spring and ball, checked for > > restriction in the intake line, metal in the filter and the magnetic plug > ; > > all without positive results. > > Has anyone experienced similar problem? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Jan 15, 2000
Subject: 1999 List of Contributors #2!
Dear Listers, Below is the final List of Contributors for 1999 as promised. Again, I would like to thank everyone that made a generous contribution in 1999 to support the continued operation of these email Lists. Your support directly makes the quality and quantity of this service possible. Thank you! Matt Dralle EMail List Administrator RV-4 Builder, #1763 - N442RV =================== 1999 List of Contributors #2 ==================== Adamson, Arden Allender, Patrick Anonymous from MN Asher, M.E. Baxter, Rob Bell, Doug Bendure, Ryan Bergh, David Berrie, Robert Blake, J.I. Boucher, Michel Bragg, Medford Briegleb, Ross Brietigam, Charles Broomell, Glenn Brusilow, Michael Chatham, Robert Clary, Buck Coats, Lonnie Cook, Craig - Golf Instruments Co. Cooper, James Cribb, William Jr. Crosby, Harry Dane, Bill Von Dziewiontkoski, Bob Ellenberger, Mike Embree, Roger Faatz, Mitch Fasching, John Gibbons, Robert Glauser, David Gold, Andy -Builder's Bookstore 10% Gregory, Steve Grenier, Raymond Guarino, Michael H., Harold - E.P.M.AV Corp Hale, Brian Hunt, Wallace Johnston, Leroy Jordon, Don Killion, Clay Klingmuller, Dr. L.M. Magaw, David Mains, Ralph Maltby, Michael Martin, Cliff - Martin Metal Fab Mazataud, Hyun Sook McBride, Duncan McDonald, James Mendenhall, Elbie - E.M Aviation Mitchell, Duane Morley, Harold Peck, Phil Pessel, Garnett Rodebush, James Ross, Jonathan Schmidt, John Scully, William Smith, Steven Spence, Stephen Triff, Wes Wagoner, Richard Weaver, Brian Wiegenstein, John Wiley, Robert Wilson, Donald -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Jan 16, 2000
Subject: Confusion Over "List of Contributors"...
Hi Listers, I'm really sorry for the confusion over the most recent posting of the List of Contributors #2. List #2 contained only the contributor names *since* the List #1 was posted. So, if you weren't on List #2, you were likely on List #1. Below are URLs to each of the LOC #x postings. Again, sorry for the confusion. I should have made it more clear in the verbiage. Thanks to everyone, Matt Dralle Email List Admin. ============================= LOC #1 and #2 ================================ List of Contributors #1 - 1999 ------------------------------ http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=29144?KEYS=list_of_con?LISTNAME=Homebuilt?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=11144111847?SHOWBUTTONS=NO List of Contributors #2 - 1999 ------------------------------ http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=29144?KEYS=list_of_con?LISTNAME=Homebuilt?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=11144111847?SHOWBUTTONS=NO ============================================================================ -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2000
From: Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: (Whoops) Confusion Over "List of Contributors"...
> >Okay, here are the *real* URLs. Sorry... > > >Matt Dralle >Email List Admin. > > >============================= LOC #1 and #2 ================================ > > > List of Contributors #1 - 1999 > ------------------------------ > > >http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=29144?KEYS=list_ >of_con?LISTNAME=Homebuilt?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=11144111847?SHOWBUTTONS=NO > > > List of Contributors #2 - 1999 > ------------------------------ > > >http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=53146?KEYS=list_ >of_con?LISTNAME=Homebuilt?HITNUMBER=1?SERIAL=11144111847?SHOWBUTTONS=YES > > >============================================================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Jan 16, 2000
Subject: Re: (No, Really - Here are the URLs) Confusion Over "List
of Contributors"... Geeze, I can't seem to type today. Here are the *real*, *REAL* URLs. Sorry for so many posts... Ack Matt Dralle Email List Admin. ============================= LOC #1 and #2 ================================ List of Contributors #1 - 1999 ------------------------------ http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=29144?KEYS=list_of_con?LISTNAME=Homebuilt?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=11144111847?SHOWBUTTONS=NO List of Contributors #2 - 1999 ------------------------------ http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=53146?KEYS=list_of_con?LISTNAME=Homebuilt?HITNUMBER=1?SERIAL=11144111847?SHOWBUTTONS=NO ============================================================================ -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2000
From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
> -----Original Message----- >> ps: Let's establish "lb-ft" as the standard designation for >> torque on this list (unless we boldly adopt the Newton-metre). "ft-lb" in >> incorrect, and grating. -Vaso > Vaso: > On what basis? Neither Oxford nor Webster's list "pound-feet," > though both list "foot-pounds." Given that multiplication is commutative, > "ft-lb" has the same meaning as "lb-ft." The verbal expression is > "foot-pounds," as supported by dictionaries on both sides of the Atlantic. > Therefore, "ft-lb" is not only acceptable, it is preferable, particularly > in casual writing (such as email). > Tedd > (mechanical engineer, technical writer, and amateur linguist) > Tedd: I'm surprised to hear this from a mechanical engineer, but maybe not. ;-) Mechanical engineers in the USA have been dragging their feet on unit and metric standardization for many years (unlike electrical engineers...). Webster's and Oxford are the wrong dictionaries to consult for technical units, but for the record, the Concise Oxford lists only one definition of foot-pound: "the amount of energy required to raise 1 lb a distance of 1 foot." There is no mention of foot-pound being a unit of torque. I didn't consult colonial dictionaries such as Webster's. More to the point are definitions in the technical literature. For instance, Machinery's Handbook, 23rd Edition: "Torque is commonly expressed in pound-inches, pound-foot...", and University Physics-Sears & Zemansky, 4th Edition: "If forces are expressed in pounds, and lengths in feet, torques are expressed in pound-feet." Use of the unit "foot-pound" for torque is just plain wrong. -Vaso ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com>
Subject: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
Date: Jan 17, 2000
Vaso: > I'm surprised to hear this from a mechanical engineer, but > maybe not. ;-) > Mechanical engineers in the USA have been dragging their feet > on unit and > metric standardization for many years (unlike electrical > engineers...). I'm not in the United States. > More to the point are definitions in the technical > literature. For instance, > Machinery's Handbook, 23rd Edition: "Torque is commonly expressed in > pound-inches, pound-foot...", The full quote (21st edition) is "Moment or torque is commonly expressed in pound-feet, pound-inches, kilogram-meters, etc." I think it's clear from the "kilogram-meters" that they're not talking about correct usage! I think it's also clear that the "etc." leaves room for other expressions, such as foot-pounds. > Use of the unit "foot-pound" for torque is just plain wrong. If I were writing for a technical publication, I would use the convention adopted by the audience of that publication, or recommended in its style guide. (Even so, I used the term "foot-pound" exclusively in my thesis, to describe torque, and no one raised an eyebrow.) However, an informal email listserver is not a technical publication, so such narrow conventions aren't appropriate. I think your attempt to promote a kind of style guide for the list is unnecessary. What is appropriate in email is the common, day-to-day usage of the writer. I can assure you that, where I live, the use of foot-pounds to express either torque or energy is common, even among engineers (of any persuasion). A quick survey around my office, which has engineers (mostly electrical) from most of the English-speaking countries, indicates that foot-pound is a very common expression for torque. Because this listserver is global, my day-to-day usage will differ from that of other list members. That's one reason why RFC 1855 ("Netiquette Guidelines") recommends this rule of thumb for email: "Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive." In this context, I think we can take that to mean "this is informal debate; don't get too pedantic about terminology." Condemning someone's terminology as "just plain wrong," when it is clearly common usage, falls short on both counts. Perhaps you feel that using common, day-to-day language isn't being sufficiently "conservative in what you send." That is your right. I disagree. Tedd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com>
Subject: Re: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
Date: Jan 17, 2000
Gee you guys, get a life. You should be more interested in how to produce it. Any real engineer really doesn't care. John -----Original Message----- From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> Date: Monday, January 17, 2000 1:01 AM Subject: Engines-List: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque > >> -----Original Message----- >>> ps: Let's establish "lb-ft" as the standard designation for >>> torque on this list (unless we boldly adopt the Newton-metre). "ft-lb" in >>> incorrect, and grating. -Vaso > > >> Vaso: >> On what basis? Neither Oxford nor Webster's list "pound-feet," >> though both list "foot-pounds." Given that multiplication is commutative, >> "ft-lb" has the same meaning as "lb-ft." The verbal expression is >> "foot-pounds," as supported by dictionaries on both sides of the Atlantic. >> Therefore, "ft-lb" is not only acceptable, it is preferable, particularly >> in casual writing (such as email). >> Tedd >> (mechanical engineer, technical writer, and amateur linguist) >> > >Tedd: > >I'm surprised to hear this from a mechanical engineer, but maybe not. ;-) >Mechanical engineers in the USA have been dragging their feet on unit and >metric standardization for many years (unlike electrical engineers...). > >Webster's and Oxford are the wrong dictionaries to consult for technical >units, but for the record, the Concise Oxford lists only one definition of >foot-pound: "the amount of energy required to raise 1 lb a distance of 1 >foot." There is no mention of foot-pound being a unit of torque. I didn't >consult colonial dictionaries such as Webster's. > >More to the point are definitions in the technical literature. For instance, >Machinery's Handbook, 23rd Edition: "Torque is commonly expressed in >pound-inches, pound-foot...", and University Physics-Sears & Zemansky, 4th >Edition: "If forces are expressed in pounds, and lengths in feet, torques >are expressed in pound-feet." > >Use of the unit "foot-pound" for torque is just plain wrong. > >-Vaso > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2000
From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
>> More to the point are definitions in the technical >> literature. For instance, Machinery's Handbook, 23rd Edition: >> "Torque is commonly expressed in pound-inches, pound-foot...", > The full quote (21st edition) is "Moment or torque is commonly > expressed in pound-feet, pound-inches, kilogram-meters, etc." > I think it's clear from the "kilogram-meters" that they're not > talking about correct usage! I think it's also clear that the > "etc." leaves room for other expressions, such as foot-pounds. ?? Each of the units listed by Machinery's Handbook in this passage is correct. "kilogram-meters" is (was) the designated unit for torque in the old MKS system - since superceded by the newton-metre. The Machinery's Handbook passage does not include any units that are wrong - most pointedly "foot-pound" or anything with that construction is not included. I find it a stretch to claim that "etc" leaves room for incorrect units. In fact, I can't find ANY reference anywhere that allows "foot-pounds" for torque. >> Use of the unit "foot-pound" for torque is just plain wrong. > ...an informal email listserver is not a technical publication, so > such narrow conventions aren't appropriate. I think your attempt to > promote a kind of style guide for the list is unnecessary...What is > appropriate in email is the common, day-to-day usage of the writer... You may call them "foot-pounds" if you insist, or even "boogerberts" if you wish, but it is still an incorrect usage, with any writer, anywhere, addressed to any audience. Many people do confuse energy with torque, so I believe it is useful for a considerate writer to distinguish between the two by appropriate unit of measure. > ...RFC 1855 ("Netiquette Guidelines") recommends this rule of thumb for > email: "Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive."... :-) I couldn't find any reference supporting the use of "foot-pound" for torque either... > Perhaps you feel that using common, day-to-day language isn't being > sufficiently "conservative in what you send." That is your right. > I disagree. Tedd OK. I tried. -Vaso ps I also cringe at the common, popular pronunciation of "nuclear" as "nukiler". I guess I'm being pedantic. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2000
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Subject: Re: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
Gentlemen, My Sam's Handbook Of Electronic Tables And Formulas, 6th Edition list torque values as foot-pounds & offers conversion ratios to gram-centemeters, horsepower-hours, kuilograms-meters, kilowatt-hours, and ounce-inches. It does address newtons but not newton-meters. I noted in the margin that 35 newton-meters = 3.57 meter-kilograms, but I don't remember where I got that from. For what its worth, ...Richard Swiderski Vaso Bovan wrote: > > >> More to the point are definitions in the technical > >> literature. For instance, Machinery's Handbook, 23rd Edition: > >> "Torque is commonly expressed in pound-inches, pound-foot...", > > > The full quote (21st edition) is "Moment or torque is commonly > > expressed in pound-feet, pound-inches, kilogram-meters, etc." > > I think it's clear from the "kilogram-meters" that they're not > > talking about correct usage! I think it's also clear that the > > "etc." leaves room for other expressions, such as foot-pounds. > > ?? Each of the units listed by Machinery's Handbook in this passage is > correct. "kilogram-meters" is (was) the designated unit for torque in the > old MKS system - since superceded by the newton-metre. The Machinery's > Handbook passage does not include any units that are wrong - most pointedly > "foot-pound" or anything with that construction is not included. I find it a > stretch to claim that "etc" leaves room for incorrect units. In fact, I > can't find ANY reference anywhere that allows "foot-pounds" for torque. > > >> Use of the unit "foot-pound" for torque is just plain wrong. > > > ...an informal email listserver is not a technical publication, so > > such narrow conventions aren't appropriate. I think your attempt to > > promote a kind of style guide for the list is unnecessary...What is > > appropriate in email is the common, day-to-day usage of the writer... > > You may call them "foot-pounds" if you insist, or even "boogerberts" if you > wish, but it is still an incorrect usage, with any writer, anywhere, > addressed to any audience. Many people do confuse energy with torque, so I > believe it is useful for a considerate writer to distinguish between the two > by appropriate unit of measure. > > > ...RFC 1855 ("Netiquette Guidelines") recommends this rule of thumb for > > email: "Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you > receive."... > > :-) I couldn't find any reference supporting the use of "foot-pound" for > torque either... > > > Perhaps you feel that using common, day-to-day language isn't being > > sufficiently "conservative in what you send." That is your right. > > I disagree. Tedd > > OK. I tried. > > -Vaso > > ps I also cringe at the common, popular pronunciation of "nuclear" as > "nukiler". I guess I'm being pedantic. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com>
Subject: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
Date: Jan 18, 2000
> > > Gee you guys, get a life. You should be more interested in > how to produce > it. Any real engineer really doesn't care. Exactly. Tedd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neville Bohm" <nevbohm(at)bigtree.co.za>
Subject: Re: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
Date: Jan 18, 2000
Hi Tedd and Vaso, I think that you will find this issue of "foot-pounds" or "pound-foot" as a measure for torque is dependant on the side of the Atlantic you are from. I confirmed the "pound-foot" measure of torque in my copy of Machinery's Handbook, an American publication, but then also found "foot-pounds" in my copy of Kempe's Engineers Handbook, a British publication. Having a British background I prefer the "foot-pound", which is the nomenclature that I was taught to use for torque. We hardly ever come across these old imperial measures nowadays, since converting to the Metric System during the 1960s. I use the Newton-metre for torque. But in the end, who cares which is used, so long as we know what is meant and there can be no confusion arising from the terminology. Regards, Neville Bhm. South Africa. ----- Original Message ----- From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> Sent: 17 January 2000 07:49 Subject: Engines-List: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque > > > -----Original Message----- > >> ps: Let's establish "lb-ft" as the standard designation for > >> torque on this list (unless we boldly adopt the Newton-metre). "ft-lb" in > >> incorrect, and grating. -Vaso > > > > Vaso: > > On what basis? Neither Oxford nor Webster's list "pound-feet," > > though both list "foot-pounds." Given that multiplication is commutative, > > "ft-lb" has the same meaning as "lb-ft." The verbal expression is > > "foot-pounds," as supported by dictionaries on both sides of the Atlantic. > > Therefore, "ft-lb" is not only acceptable, it is preferable, particularly > > in casual writing (such as email). > > Tedd > > (mechanical engineer, technical writer, and amateur linguist) > > > > Tedd: > > I'm surprised to hear this from a mechanical engineer, but maybe not. ;-) > Mechanical engineers in the USA have been dragging their feet on unit and > metric standardization for many years (unlike electrical engineers...). > > Webster's and Oxford are the wrong dictionaries to consult for technical > units, but for the record, the Concise Oxford lists only one definition of > foot-pound: "the amount of energy required to raise 1 lb a distance of 1 > foot." There is no mention of foot-pound being a unit of torque. I didn't > consult colonial dictionaries such as Webster's. > > More to the point are definitions in the technical literature. For instance, > Machinery's Handbook, 23rd Edition: "Torque is commonly expressed in > pound-inches, pound-foot...", and University Physics-Sears & Zemansky, 4th > Edition: "If forces are expressed in pounds, and lengths in feet, torques > are expressed in pound-feet." > > Use of the unit "foot-pound" for torque is just plain wrong. > > -Vaso > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
Subject: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
Date: Jan 18, 2000
>...We hardly ever come across these old imperial >measures nowadays, since converting to the Metric System during the 1960s... Gee, I guess we're the only old imperials left. :-) John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2000
From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
>Hi Tedd and Vaso, I think that you will find this issue of "foot-pounds" or "pound-foot" as a measure for torque is dependant on the side of the Atlantic you are from. I confirmed the "pound-foot" measure of torque in my copy of Machinery's Handbook, an American publication, but then also found "foot-pounds" in my copy of Kempe's Engineers Handbook, a British publication. Having a British background I prefer the "foot-pound", which is the nomenclature that I was taught to use for torque. -Neville< That's interesting: the worst knuckle-rapper on the issue of units for torque in my (Canadian) engineering school was an old Scottish mechanical engineer (and designer of steam engines) who preferred N-m, but would accept lb-ft. He absolutely would not accept ft-lb. (Canada was in transition in the mid-70s from Imperial to Metric). The only British reference I have easily at hand, Butterworth's "Mazda's Electronics Engineer's Reference Text, 6th Ed.", uses lb-ft. >We hardly ever come across these old imperial measures nowadays, since converting to the Metric System during the 1960s.< The sooner Muyamar, Liberia, and the USA change to metric the better, to end this confusion of slugs, poundals and pounds(f)/pound(m). I'm not aware of anyone using "metre-newton," even casually. >But in the end, who cares which is used, so long as we know what is meant and there can be no confusion arising from the terminology.< It's de minimus, perhaps, but I notice even automobile hobbyist magazines (the kind featuring women with large headlights on the cover), more often than not, have been shamed into insisting on lb-ft for torque from their writers. -Vaso (California) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2000
From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: FW: Whirlwind Model 150 Propeller ?
Vaso; Yes, you can post my response to your questions. We hope to be ready for deliveries to start this summer. By the way, I saw the QCS prop at Oshkosh. Are they about to deliver any propellers? Regards, Jim Rust Vaso Bovan wrote: > Jim: > > May I quote your answers on the Glastar and Engine lists ? > > I'm holding off ordering a prop as long as possible. The three > candidates are: Whirlwind Model 150, the Global QCS, and one of > the MT hydraulic or electric models. Your Model 150 looks very > promising, but it appears I will have to make a buy decision in > late spring, for delivery perhaps November. > -Vaso > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Whirl Wind Propellers Corporation >> [mailto:wwpc(at)whirlwindpropellers.com] >> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 11:05 AM >> To: vaso(at)bovan.com >> Subject: Re: Whirlwind Model 150 Propeller ? >> >> Vaso; >> The 150 Series is our current development priority. We plan to >> have this propeller ready by early summer. We have made some >> design changes specifically deal with O320 O360 Lycomings. The >> 150 Series prototype weight, 18 lbs; the production model will >> weigh approx. 25 lbs. >> Regards, >> Jim Rust >> >> Vaso Bovan wrote: >>> Are we still talking late spring for production of Model 150 >>> C/S propellers ?... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2000
From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities
[List: About six weeks ago I posted "36 possibilities" for improving a Lycoming (I)O-360 engine at overhaul, and asked for comments. Recently, Christopher Huey replied privately, and I have his permission to post the response. -Vaso] -----Original Message----- From: christopher huey [mailto:clhuey(at)sprynet.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 10:19 PM Subject: 200 Hp motor Well I ended up with Cerminil cyl and wanted to know more about them and your thread came up in a search. Anyway I can only comment on some of your points. I am near completion of a aerobatic monoplane used for competition and basically used a motor very similar to what you described. I went with the angle valve because I have had good luck in the past with them and you have an extra 20 hp to start off with. I am also running a MT 2 blade prop. Lycon does good work and I know they are fond of the parallel valve engine..but to get the HP of the angle valved engine you need to change the cam, cyl 10-1 etc..etc...thats extra money and I think you sacrifice reliability. My friend has 10-1 pistons in his angle valve motor and his oil temps are always high (220' plus/ 80'f day). I left in the 8.7-1 pistons, like I had in my old airplane....temps were under control... 215'fmax here in AZ. I used the Sky Dynamics sump/induction/4-1 exhaust....all worth the money, I do believe this system slightly increases HP as well as makes the engine 7-10 lbs. lighter. I would stay with the Sky Dynamics exhaust as it fits the sump and is $1024. It is a nice package...sorta expensive though. If you go with the Sky Dynamics sump, use a SkyTec (7.8lbs) starter and save yourself some time over the B&C unit. I had trouble with the fit of their starter. The B&C oil filter unit is real nice....thats what I used. Also used their Alt Port/ Polish...did not do it....I do not want any material taken off ...plus after 5 hrs your "Polish" has carbon all over it anyway. A friends Christen Eagle has a pre-oiler...works nice. If you do not fly much it might be worth it. Did not use one though too much weight and I fly at least twice a week. Not sure if the Airflow Performance will work with a Sky Dynamics sump, they put out a nice injector unit and I use one of their high pressure pumps. I would stick with two magnetos...friend had the LightSpeed on a 180hp TaylorCraft. He messed with it a lot....claimed it was worth it though. I basically stuck with things that have worked for me in the past. I think a lot of this "More Horse Power" stuff makes little difference. I fly with guys that put in the high compression pistons, port polish, yada, yada, yada and our airplanes perform the same (speed, climb,). Definitely go with new limits, reliability would be my main concern. Take care, C.H. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities
Date: Jan 19, 2000
> Port/ Polish...did not do it....I do not want any material taken off ...plus > after 5 hrs your "Polish" has carbon all over it anyway. I would like to comment on this "black magic" area. First, The ports and valves were designed by our great- grandparents before the advent of real flow, and dynamics testing. Anyone that has knowledge in this area will tell you that these are not even close as far as port design and valve sizes. Ex. on an O-200, I use smaller valves, and a radical reshape & welding of the intake port. Flow volume goes up. No room to really elaborate here. Second, As far as port finish is concerned, Intake port should have enough roughness to gauge with your fingernail, and the Exhaust ports should be smooth, but not mirror like. Where they transition into the pipes, they should be just slightly smaller in diameter than the actual pipe, in order to prevent reversion. The same applies to the intake transitions. Now, if you want to talk about sizes..................... Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2000
Subject: Re: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities
From: "Shelby Smith" <shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com>
Could you re-post or e-mail those, I was not able to find them in the archive. -- Shelby Smith shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com RV6A - Skinning Fuselage - 200HP N95EB - reserved ---------- >From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> >To: engines-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Engines-List: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities >Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2000, 12:11 AM > > [List: About six weeks ago I posted "36 possibilities" for improving a > Lycoming (I)O-360 engine at overhaul, and asked for comments. Recently, > Christopher Huey replied privately, and I have his permission to post the > response. -Vaso] ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ed0248(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 19, 2000
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/18/00
In a message dated 01/19/2000 1:54:50 AM Central Standard Time, engines-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes: << > > > Gee you guys, get a life. You should be more interested in > how to produce > it. Any real engineer really doesn't care. Exactly. >> Can you imagine what worlds these guys could conquer if they expended all this ENERGY on making the engine run better? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2000
Subject: Re: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
From: b green <rvinfo(at)juno.com>
As an engineer, I would say that either way is correct given the fact that it doesn't matter which gets multiplied first. I believe that is the communicative law. I am also a lawyer and this is the very type of things that lawyers would argue about for days. I have always used ft-lbs, but if someone said lbs-ft, I am reasonably sure I would know what they were talking about. Unless there is some "unit police force" out there, I don't think anybody can say one is wrong. In sum, real engineers would stop wasting time thinking about such a concept, but I may bring it up to some lawyers I know and I'm sure it will get debated for hours. Bruce Green > >>Hi Tedd and Vaso, >I think that you will find this issue of "foot-pounds" or "pound-foot" >as a >measure for torque is dependant on the side of the Atlantic you are >from. I >confirmed the "pound-foot" measure of torque in my copy of >Machinery's >Handbook, an American publication, but then also found "foot-pounds" >in my >copy of Kempe's Engineers Handbook, a British publication. Having a >British >background I prefer the "foot-pound", which is the nomenclature that I >was >taught to use for torque. -Neville< > >That's interesting: the worst knuckle-rapper on the issue of units >for >torque in my (Canadian) engineering school was an old Scottish >mechanical >engineer (and designer of steam engines) who preferred N-m, but would >accept >lb-ft. He absolutely would not accept ft-lb. (Canada was in transition >in >the mid-70s from Imperial to Metric). The only British reference I >have >easily at hand, Butterworth's "Mazda's Electronics Engineer's >Reference >Text, 6th Ed.", uses lb-ft. > > >>We hardly ever come across these old imperial measures nowadays, >since >converting to the Metric System during the 1960s.< > >The sooner Muyamar, Liberia, and the USA change to metric the better, >to end >this confusion of slugs, poundals and pounds(f)/pound(m). I'm not >aware of >anyone using "metre-newton," even casually. > > >>But in the end, who cares which is used, so long as we know what is >meant >and there can be no confusion arising from the terminology.< > >It's de minimus, perhaps, but I notice even automobile hobbyist >magazines >(the kind featuring women with large headlights on the cover), more >often >than not, have been shamed into insisting on lb-ft for torque from >their >writers. > >-Vaso (California) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tim T99" <townsend(at)webound.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Get a server with a hard drive
Date: Jan 20, 2000
> Never mind, > > www.onelist.com > > > None of the hassles. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Matronics Technical Support 925-606-1001 <support(at)matronics.com> > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 2:50 AM > Subject: Complete Digest Text Found in Your Post... > > > > You have included all or most of the Engines-List's Digest Post text in > your > > reply to the List. This is not recommended and your message has not > > been forwarded to the List. In the future, please edit your reply > > text to include only the portion you are directly responding to. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Matt Dralle > > Engines-List Administrator > > > > [This is an automated response.] > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 1998
From: "James F. Cooper" <blugoos1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
Engines-List Digest Server wrote: > > * > Engines-List Digest Archive > --- > Total Messages Posted Wed 01/19/00: 4 > > From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities > > > > Port/ Polish...did not do it....I do not want any material taken off > ...plus > > after 5 hrs your "Polish" has carbon all over it anyway. > > I would like to comment on this "black magic" area. > First, The ports and valves were designed by our great- > grandparents before the advent of real flow, and dynamics testing. > Anyone that has knowledge in this area will tell you that > these are not even close as far as port design and valve sizes. > Ex. on an O-200, I use smaller valves, and a radical reshape > & welding of the intake port. Flow volume goes up. > No room to really elaborate here. > Second, As far as port finish is concerned, Intake port should > have enough roughness to gauge with your fingernail, and the > Exhaust ports should be smooth, but not mirror like. Where > they transition into the pipes, they should be just slightly smaller > in diameter than the actual pipe, in order to prevent reversion. > The same applies to the intake transitions. > Now, if you want to talk about sizes..................... > Archie > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities > From: "Shelby Smith" <shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com> > > > Could you re-post or e-mail those, I was not able to find them in the > archive. > > -- > Shelby Smith > shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com > RV6A - Skinning Fuselage - 200HP > N95EB - reserved > > ---------- > >From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com> > >To: engines-list(at)matronics.com > >Subject: Engines-List: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities > >Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2000, 12:11 AM > > > > > [List: About six weeks ago I posted "36 possibilities" for improving a > > Lycoming (I)O-360 engine at overhaul, and asked for comments. Recently, > > Christopher Huey replied privately, and I have his permission to post the > > response. -Vaso] > > From: Ed0248(at)aol.com > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/18/00 > > > In a message dated 01/19/2000 1:54:50 AM Central Standard Time, > engines-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes: > > << > > > > > > Gee you guys, get a life. You should be more interested in > > how to produce > > it. Any real engineer really doesn't care. > > Exactly. > >> > Can you imagine what worlds these guys could conquer if they expended all > this ENERGY on making the engine run better? > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque > From: b green <rvinfo(at)juno.com> > > > As an engineer, I would say that either way is correct given the fact > that it doesn't matter which gets multiplied first. I believe that is > the communicative law. > > I am also a lawyer and this is the very type of things that lawyers would > argue about for days. I have always used ft-lbs, but if someone said > lbs-ft, I am reasonably sure I would know what they were talking about. > Unless there is some "unit police force" out there, I don't think > anybody can say one is wrong. > > In sum, real engineers would stop wasting time thinking about such a > concept, but I may bring it up to some lawyers I know and I'm sure it > will get debated for hours. > > Bruce Green > > > > >>Hi Tedd and Vaso, > >I think that you will find this issue of "foot-pounds" or "pound-foot" > >as a > >measure for torque is dependant on the side of the Atlantic you are > >from. I > >confirmed the "pound-foot" measure of torque in my copy of > >Machinery's > >Handbook, an American publication, but then also found "foot-pounds" > >in my > >copy of Kempe's Engineers Handbook, a British publication. Having a > >British > >background I prefer the "foot-pound", which is the nomenclature that I > >was > >taught to use for torque. -Neville< > > > >That's interesting: the worst knuckle-rapper on the issue of units > >for > >torque in my (Canadian) engineering school was an old Scottish > >mechanical > >engineer (and designer of steam engines) who preferred N-m, but would > >accept > >lb-ft. He absolutely would not accept ft-lb. (Canada was in transition > >in > >the mid-70s from Imperial to Metric). The only British reference I > >have > >easily at hand, Butterworth's "Mazda's Electronics Engineer's > >Reference > >Text, 6th Ed.", uses lb-ft. > > > > > >>We hardly ever come across these old imperial measures nowadays, > >since > >converting to the Metric System during the 1960s.< > > > >The sooner Muyamar, Liberia, and the USA change to metric the better, > >to end > >this confusion of slugs, poundals and pounds(f)/pound(m). I'm not > >aware of > >anyone using "metre-newton," even casually. > > > > > >>But in the end, who cares which is used, so long as we know what is > >meant > >and there can be no confusion arising from the terminology.< > > > >It's de minimus, perhaps, but I notice even automobile hobbyist > >magazines > >(the kind featuring women with large headlights on the cover), more > >often > >than not, have been shamed into insisting on lb-ft for torque from > >their > >writers. > > > >-Vaso (California) > > I am looking for a Continental A-65 a/c engine to install in a Pietenpol. Does anyone know where I can find one? I live near Lafayette, Louisiana. Thank you, Jim Cooper ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2000
Subject: Re: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
From: wdmead <wdmead(at)compusmart.ab.ca>
I've been on the verge of unsubscribing several times while this flurry of BS has gone on. The reason I'm still on is that we all need a reminder that it doesn't take much of an error in communication to produce things like the Gimli Glider. Knowing therefore that even revered members of our hobby community like ENGINEERS can miscommunicate makes me again more cautious about the risks to this neck. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com>
Subject: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
Date: Jan 20, 2000
> I've been on the verge of unsubscribing several times while > this flurry > of BS has gone on. I've taken a lot of flack for this futile thread, and it is fully justified. At the very least, I should have taken it off-list much sooner. I apologize to everyone on the list. Tedd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pound-Foot vs Foot-Pound for Torque
Date: Jan 20, 2000
> > > I've been on the verge of unsubscribing several times while > > this flurry > > of BS has gone on. > > I've taken a lot of flack for this futile thread, and it is fully justified. > At the very least, I should have taken it off-list much sooner. I apologize > to everyone on the list. > > Tedd Tedd, You may be taking this much to seriously. As one prior message indicated, no matter how it is described, it is results that are important. This has turned out to be more a case of semantics than any thing else. I am also an engineer.(industrial) Gertrude Stein said,"A rose, is a rose, is a rose" and "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" Call it what you may, it is the final result that is of any importance. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2000
Subject: Oil
From: b green <rvinfo(at)juno.com>
Has anyone seen that new Aeroshell Plus oil. It is the normal AD oil with the Lycoming oil additive in it. I was told that it would be on the market last June, but havn't seen it anywhere yet. I have been mixing my own, but the additive is very expensive and I am hoping that it will be cheaper when added at the factory. Bruce Green Skybolt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2000
From: n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com>
Subject: Re: Oil
I have been using it for 100+hrs now. Guess it works, everything else seems to be. Costs about $28/case vs $22 for 100W here in Portland, OR kevin -6A ---------- > From: b green <rvinfo(at)juno.com> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Engines-List: Oil > Date: Friday, January 21, 2000 1:15 PM > > > Has anyone seen that new Aeroshell Plus oil. It is the normal AD oil > with the Lycoming oil additive in it. I was told that it would be on the > market last June, but havn't seen it anywhere yet. I have been mixing my > own, but the additive is very expensive and I am hoping that it will be > cheaper when added at the factory. > > > Bruce Green > Skybolt > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2000
From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
Does anyone have an opinion on the 1973 Franklin 6A-350-C2 engine? I have a chance to buy one that is disassembled but the crank, camshaft & cylinders have been inspected for cracks & have passed. A new induction system will be thrown in as well as a stamped steel oil pan... all for $5000. Is this a good deal? BTW... it is 6 cyl, 220 hp, has 800 hours on it with a top overhaul just before the 800 hours. Thanks Rich rich(at)carol.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2000
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
From: wdmead <wdmead(at)compusmart.ab.ca>
Vans Aircraft installed a 220HP Franklin in an RV-6A. If I remember right the end result was an airplane that matches the 180HP Lycoming equipped RV's in performance at a significantly heavier weight. On the other hand $5000 is a fair price for 190HP. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
Date: Jan 22, 2000
Rich, I think these are good engines, but you are not going to get 220 HP out of 350 cu ins at 2700 rpm. You will probably get 180 HP. That 220 HP figure would have be at some thing like 3200 rpm. This is too fast for most prop installations. I believe these engines were designed to run up to 3200 rpm for helicopter installations. John -----Original Message----- From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net> Date: Friday, January 21, 2000 6:56 PM Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 > >Does anyone have an opinion on the 1973 Franklin 6A-350-C2 engine? >I have a chance to buy one that is disassembled but the crank, camshaft >& cylinders have been inspected for cracks & have passed. A new induction >system will be thrown in as well as a stamped steel oil pan... >all for $5000. Is this a good deal? BTW... it is 6 cyl, 220 hp, has 800 >hours on it with a top overhaul just before the 800 hours. > >Thanks >Rich >rich(at)carol.net > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2000
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00
From: "Shelby Smith" <shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com>
It was an RV-8 - the original prototype and I think they are still evaluating it. You are correct in that it hasn't swayed Van from thinking the best money you can spend on an engine is still on a Lycoming regardless of the variety. -- Shelby Smith shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com RV6A - Skinning Fuselage - 200HP N95EB - reserved ---------- >From: wdmead <wdmead(at)compusmart.ab.ca> >To: >Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 >Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2000, 7:46 PM > > Vans Aircraft installed a 220HP Franklin in an RV-6A. If I remember > right the end result was an airplane that matches the 180HP Lycoming > equipped RV's in performance at a significantly heavier weight. On the > other hand $5000 is a fair price for 190HP. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2000
From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00
You are correct. They were designed for helicopters at 3200 rpm. This is what the guy at Franklin Engines told me. But I'm not sure if the front bearing's strong enough to take the prop load. I heard that helicopter engines are hooked up to some kind of gearbox or clutch which actually take the loads. Rich > From: "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 > > > Rich, > > I think these are good engines, but you are not going to get 220 HP out > of 350 cu ins at 2700 rpm. You will probably get 180 HP. That 220 HP > figure would have be at some thing like 3200 rpm. This is too fast for most > prop installations. I believe these engines were designed to run up to > 3200 rpm for helicopter installations. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net> > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 > > > > >Does anyone have an opinion on the 1973 Franklin 6A-350-C2 engine? > >I have a chance to buy one that is disassembled but the crank, camshaft > >& cylinders have been inspected for cracks & have passed. A new induction > >system will be thrown in as well as a stamped steel oil pan... > >all for $5000. Is this a good deal? BTW... it is 6 cyl, 220 hp, has 800 > >hours on it with a top overhaul just before the 800 hours. > > > >Thanks > >Rich > >rich(at)carol.net > > > > > ---------- > >From: wdmead <wdmead(at)compusmart.ab.ca> > >To: > >Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 > >Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2000, 7:46 PM > > > > > Vans Aircraft installed a 220HP Franklin in an RV-6A. If I remember > > right the end result was an airplane that matches the 180HP Lycoming > > equipped RV's in performance at a significantly heavier weight. On the > > other hand $5000 is a fair price for 190HP. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jon Alston" <jalsto(at)flash.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00
Date: Jan 23, 2000
But it isn't a matter of bearing load. It is a matter of tip speed on the prop blades. An average diameter prop (74-78 inches) spinning 3200 revs would have the tips moving about thier arc of rotation at near or just over the speed of sound. Helicopter rotors spin in the 600-800 rpm range and have usually a clutch and a gearbox. The added benefit is that the transmission takes the dynamic loads from the blades. -----Original Message----- From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net> Date: Sunday, January 23, 2000 10:49 AM Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00 > >You are correct. They were designed for helicopters at 3200 rpm. This is >what the guy at Franklin Engines told me. >But I'm not sure if the front bearing's strong enough to take the prop > load. I heard that helicopter engines are hooked up to some kind of >gearbox or clutch which actually take the loads. > >Rich > > >> From: "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com> >> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 >> >> >> Rich, >> >> I think these are good engines, but you are not going to get 220 HP out >> of 350 cu ins at 2700 rpm. You will probably get 180 HP. That 220 HP >> figure would have be at some thing like 3200 rpm. This is too fast for most >> prop installations. I believe these engines were designed to run up to >> 3200 rpm for helicopter installations. >> >> John >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net> >> Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 >> >> > >> >Does anyone have an opinion on the 1973 Franklin 6A-350-C2 engine? >> >I have a chance to buy one that is disassembled but the crank, camshaft >> >& cylinders have been inspected for cracks & have passed. A new induction >> >system will be thrown in as well as a stamped steel oil pan... >> >all for $5000. Is this a good deal? BTW... it is 6 cyl, 220 hp, has 800 >> >hours on it with a top overhaul just before the 800 hours. >> > >> >Thanks >> >Rich >> >rich(at)carol.net >> > >> > >> ---------- >> >From: wdmead <wdmead(at)compusmart.ab.ca> >> >To: >> >Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 >> >Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2000, 7:46 PM >> > >> >> > Vans Aircraft installed a 220HP Franklin in an RV-6A. If I remember >> > right the end result was an airplane that matches the 180HP Lycoming >> > equipped RV's in performance at a significantly heavier weight. On the >> > other hand $5000 is a fair price for 190HP. >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2000
From: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net>
Subject: Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there?
Listers Vaso requested that I forward this to the list. This has been a hassle as I had originally written to him using HTML rather than plain text. The list doesn't support HTML embedding. This required me to convert everything to plain text. Charlie Kuss name="vaso.txt" filename="vaso.txt" Vaso Thanks for sending me a copy of your original post. I will make comments on those points on which I am knowledgeable. The angle valve IO-360 (IO-360-A1A) is 37 pounds heavier than the parallel version. That is quite a weight penalty for 20 extra horses. It is also physically larger, particularly in width. Most hop up mods which increase HP will also increase heat and stress. This will reduce engine life and require a larger oil cooler. Note that the HIO-360 (helicopter) engines, which have 10:1 compression ratios, also have 1,000-1,200 hour TBO. I have no knowledge of the 4 into 1 exhaust you mention. I would like you to pass on to me, any additional info you receive on it. HP gained via improved exhaust scavenging will not shorten the life expectancy of your engine. It is the one truly free lunch, so to speak. If the engine you obtain has an oil pump with serviceable aluminium gears, don't waste your money getting compliance with the steel oil pump gear AD. The aluminium gears are good for 6,000 hours. The new gears are a scam from Lycoming to sell more parts. I have this on the authority of Phil, from Mattituck Engine Rebuilders. Since we are experimental, we don't have to comply with that AD. Superior's new Millennium cylinders are slightly cheaper and of much better quality than Lycoming's. Stay away from rebuilt cylinders if you can afford it. The aluminium in the heads becomes fatigued with hours. Welding the cracks just means that the new cracks will form on either side of the welds. Old metal is old metal. Check out http://www.superair.com/lycom2.htm Save the $$$ for the B&C alternator. Go to your local Honda dealer and buy an 86 Civic alternator instead. It's the same thing but for half the price. Eliminate it's internal voltage regulator, per Bob Nuckells suggestions. See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bleadov.pdf for a wiring schematic. You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this web page. Go to http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/ and click on the ALTERNATOR MODIFICATION LINK for excellent info on this mod. You can use an automotive remote oil filter for a lot less than the AirWolf setup. Just be sure to use aircraft oil filters. They are designed for the higher oil pressures found in aircraft engines using heavy single weight oils. Below is an old RV List thread on the subject. Charlie Gamijectors are not really necessary on Lycomings. Continentals need them due to their poor manifold design. > Subject: 190/200hp IO-360 ? How to get there ? > > I'm looking for comments on the course of action detailed below. I'm > building a Glastar. I'm looking to install an engine of ~190/200hp fitting > the standard Dynafocal engine mount sold for the Glastar. The easiest way > would be to buy a new IO-360, Apparently, the IO-360 sold by Lycoming today > is a 200hp angle-value engine having an outrageous $30K+ price tag. > > Ideally, I would like to end up with an IO-360, with Airflow Performance > fuel injection, single Lightspeed ignition (plus single mag), with optimized > intake and exhaust. The question is how to get there from here. My current > thought is to buy a run-out O-360 and have it rebuilt by one of the better > shops - such as Lycon. > > First question: Should I start with a parallel or angled valve O-360 ? I'm > told the angle-valve runs rougher and is more highly stressed (for a given > horsepower output) than a parallel value engine. On the other hand, I'm told > the angle-value engine is easier to optimize - partly due to its value > configuration. Comments ? > > This is my current thinking: > > *1 Start with first run-out O-360 (actual type depends on decision to go > with QCS "fixed" prop or Whirlwind/MT C/S prop). > *2 Aim for mild hp increase, but significant specific fuel consumption > improvement. > *3 Allow Lycon (or other shop) to procure run-out engine, to avoid > charge-backs > *4 Insist on New Limits except for parts that can safely be recycled at > Service Limits > *5 Insist that shop follows Lycoming's Mandatory Replacement Bulletin(s) > (S.B 240) at minimum. > *6 Have shop do work on "TBO Upgraded" basis where possible. > *7 Install new pistons with ~9.5:1 compression ratio > *8 Install roller tip rockers > *9 Allow PMA - rather than OEM - parts where better or equivalent > *10 Pay for tight dynamic balancing > *11 Pay for flow-balancing > *12 Pay for Porting & Polishing > *13 Install Ney nozzles > *14 Pay for optimized choke on cylinder barrel > *15 Pay for grouping of lifters/tappets by bleed-down rate > *16 Pay for extra attention to main bearing clearances > *17 Request ECI's IFR "Freedom" processing of crankcase > *18 Request black phosphate coating on cams and tappets > *19 Allow regrinding of tappets > *20 Change to adjustable ball-spring oil pressure relief valve > *21 Change to new style vernatherm oil bypass valve > *22 Prefer CermiNil over CermiChrome > *23 Install venturi-style intake valve seat if possible > *24 Pay for back-cut, triple-grinding and hand-lapping of valves > *25 Pay for hone finish on valve guides > *26 Leave cylinders unpainted > *27 Install Gamijectors or pay for injection matching > *28 Install Airflow Performance Fuel Injection > *30 Install Lightspeed ignition > *31 Install Maxi-Sump ? SkyDynamics sells this low-weight > (magnesium) sump and cold air induction system that claims to > reduce weight by 10lb+, and increases horsepower on an IO-360. > Cost is $2K+. > *32 Tuned exhaust ? Power Flow Systems (PFS) claims an > eyebrow-raising 10-15% increase in effective power output from a > Lycoming O-320. Lycon says they verified this power increase on > their test cell. The PFS exhaust is expensive - ~$2K+. > *33 Pre-Oiler ? > *34 Remote Oil filter ? Airwolf ? B&C ? > *35 Starter: B&C ? > *36 Alternator: B&C ? > > Comments on any of the above points welcomed. > > -Vaso name="filters.txt" filename="filters.txt" Remote Oil Filter Installation Info I'm not a Lycoming expert, but as I understand it, the vernatherm allows cold oil to bypass the oil cooler. As the oil temp increases, the vernatherm starts to close off the bypass and start to force some of the oil through the cooler. If the oil gets hot enough, the vernatherm totally closes off the bypass and forces all of the oil through the cooler. So if your filter is in series with the cooler, wouldn't your oil only be filtered when it gets hot? And if your flying in really cold temps, maybe only part of the oil supply is getting filtered? This probably isn't a problem, but just a thought. Mark LaBoyteaux MLaboyteau(at)aol.com RV-6a N106RV Do what I and a lot of other builders have done. Get a remote spin on filter bracket from the performance automotive store and plumb it in series with the oil cooler using hoses. If you look at the oil circuit diagram in the Lyc. overhaul man. in conjunction with looking at an accessory case and normally supplied spin on adapter you will see that the path that the oil takes is the same as if you plumb them in series with each other. You still use your screen housing, so that you still have the function of the vernatherm but you remove the screen from it. I believe everything you have said is true, but it is also the case if you use a standard spin on adapter as supplied with the engine. If you have an adapter, and an accessory case off of an engine and can follow the oil passages you find that the oil circuit goes through the filter housing and then out through the cooler (or the other way around; can't remember now). The way it is set up the vernatherm provides a bypass for the cooler and the filter. Cold thick oil doesn't flow through a paper media filter very well. So if you have a screen housing you can remove the screen, but continue using the housing to retain the function of the vernatherm. All of the builders that I know of doing this installation have run from the oil cooler outlet port, to the filter adapter, then to the oil cooler, and then finally back to the cooler return port. This allows you to inexpensively mount the filter vertically, but beware; you can still have oil mess when removing the filter because you now drain the cooler and the related lines (but you can decide where the mess will be dealt with (it also might get more of the normally undrainable oil out of the system depending on how you did your installation). I think when I bought my adapter (6 or so years ago) it was about $20. Add to that one more hose, a couple of fittings and reducers and your done. As I mentioned in a previous post I use a CH48108 filter (Champion part number) because it has a bypass valve built in (same price as a CH48110). Because the Lyc spin on adapter has a spring loaded by pass valve built in. Tom at Vans has talked about using performance automotive filters that are rated for high pressure to save some money but I have never bothered (or wanted to take the chance) with it. BTW the adapter that I have is cast aluminum, and probably weighs about the same as what the spin on adapter weighs, so there is some weight gain from retaining the screen housing and adding another hose but not too much Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs. Volkswagen has a great remote filter to attach to firewall. Sits vertical and is clean and easy to access and change. I know a fellow with a 6A who has used this setup for 5 years. It looks very professional and works like a charm. Corsair aka Austin Tinckler tinckler(at)axionet.com A year or so ago there was much discussion about automotive oil filters on airplanes. They were pretty negative as the automotive filters are of MUCH lighter construction. Just a thought....... Michael Michael, I asked Dan the same question. He then went over to his desk and pulled out a note book with all the stat sheets on automotive and aircraft oil filters. The filter he decided to use is a fram (not sure of the number I will have to ask again) automotive filter with a burst pressure higher then the aircraft oil filter. Like I said before the guy did his research. Ryan Bendure The Fram filter is a HP-1. It is available at Checker Automotive and is designed for high performance race cars. I also called the manufacturer and verified that the pressure it is designed for is way up there. I seem to remember 300 psi, but may be very wrong on that. Warren Gretz, (Gretz Aero) 3664 East Lake Drive Littleton, CO 80121 (303) 770-3811 gretz-aero(at)juno.com You might want to look at the Fram HP-1 filter. Its a racing filter that fits in place of the PH8A your using. Disabling the bypass valve is a popular racers trick and those guys use the HP-1. Mike Wills RV-4 panel stuff willsm(at)manta.spawar.navy.mil The Fram PH8A outer can will show distortion if it sees around 150 psi. The HP-1 is rated to operate up to 200 lbs. working pressure. Something is really wrong if an engine is showing this kind of oil pressure. Sounds like too thick an oil for the ambient temperature combined with warm-up revs that were a bit aggresive. If the oil pressure gauge is mechanical and connected with capillary tubing it may not be reponding to the high pressure quickly enough because of the flow restriction. If the gauge is electrical the sending unit may be topping out. Either way the wear and load on the pump drive will be very high. John Solecki Toronto Thanks to all who posted replys to my problem. I solved it by going to my local avation supplier and buying a avation filter that fit my filter mount. Comparing the two filters, it is readily apparent that the av filter is much more robust. I think one lister had the answer: no bypass valve on the Lyc. engine to the filter and there is one on auto engines. Gary Bray Carmel, Maine RV-6 10 hrs. If you are using the standard Lycoming spin-on adapter, the adapter it self has the bypass built in. I believe you were using another method which means you would not have the adapter (or by-pass). If this is the case it would still be a good idea for you to use a filter with a by-pass even though the aviation filter is stronger and less likely to burst. The Champion CH48108 filter has a by-pass valve built in. The CH48110 does not. The CH48108 is what I used on the remote oil filter installation on my RV-6A, and it is used by many other builders also. Scott McDaniels Champion filter 48108 is similar to the popular 48110 except it includes a bypass valve. The 48108 fits perfectly on the Moroso Ford racing remote mount on my RV6 installation: http://www.ath.tis.net/~sbuc/rv6/engine2.html Sam Buchanan (Finally ready to paint) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there?
Date: Jan 23, 2000
I can assure you that after many years on the flow bench, that "flow balancing" shows nothing on the dyno. This is one of the best misnomers in aviation. The process is by taking the highest flowing ports out of an engine, and enlarge all others to match. This helps with some smoothness,(depends on how much variance pre-existed), but does nothing for horsepower. For the uninitiated, it is a "romance" item. It is worth doing, and gives some bragging rights, but may not be worth the money. For instance, I have found that for best all around flow, most aircraft cylinders and the associated flow systems are not properly matched for optimum performance. "Most" are too large, have ridiculous appendages, and remember, designed by our great grandparents before the advent of precision measuring and calculating tools. I have increased horsepower in several aircraft engines by reducing, reshaping ports & pipes, and yes... smaller valves. One clue as to whether or not your engine shop has modern equipment: If they lap valves to seat them, find another shop! Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2000
Subject: Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there?
From: "Shelby Smith" <shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com>
I am curious, does Superior make the angle valve cylinders. -- Shelby Smith shelbyrv6a(at)mindspring.com RV6A - Skinning Fuselage - 200HP N95EB - reserved ---------- >From: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net> >To: Engines List >Subject: Engines-List: Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there? >Date: Sun, Jan 23, 2000, 5:17 PM > > Superior's new Millennium cylinders are slightly cheaper and of much > better > quality than Lycoming's. Stay away from rebuilt cylinders if you can > afford it. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Luce" <rdluce(at)geocities.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00
Date: Jan 23, 2000
That particular engine block design has been around since the late '50's. It used to be a fairly popular replacement for the 145-160hp Lycommings in 172's. Supposedly there's never been a AD issued for the Franklin 350, but that's probably more due to a smaller installation base than a perfect engine design. So far, I haven't found anybody that has worked on them say anything bad about them. Unfortunately, they usually followed up the conversation with "Just buy a Lycomming". (What's up with this? Probably explains why aviation is in the state that it is.) Main benefit. New Engine = $14,000 Main drawback. Lycomming lemmingitis. (30k for a engine is cheap? 14k for a engine is cheap? I've got some land for sale, really!) ----- Original Message ----- From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 10:55 AM Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00 > > You are correct. They were designed for helicopters at 3200 rpm. This is > what the guy at Franklin Engines told me. > But I'm not sure if the front bearing's strong enough to take the prop > load. I heard that helicopter engines are hooked up to some kind of > gearbox or clutch which actually take the loads. > > Rich > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2000
From: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net>
Subject: Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there?
Shelby As far as I know, Superior's Millennium cylinders are only produced for the parallel valve engines. Of course, that may be in the pipeline. Charlie > > I am curious, does Superior make the angle valve cylinders. > > -- > Shelby Smith > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2000
From: n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com>
Subject: mixture differences
Archie - I have a 160 hp O-320 D2J in my RV-6A. It was rebuilt with new ECI cyl assmb's and has 500+ hrs on it. I am getting 72 lbs compression each cyl., any leakage is thru the oil breather. Cylinder #4 EGT always reads the lowest, usually on the order of 100 degrees. This variance changes of course based on climb-out, altitude, etc.... I assume #4 cylinder runs richer than the rest. It's plugs are always towards the black, oily side. CHT's are all within 10 degrees of being equal. Could I run a hotter plug in #4 to help balance EGT's or is it more complicated than that? Is this even worth worrying about? Kevin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Rich, Their should be nothing wrong with engines ability to handle prop loads. I looked up a power curve I had for this engine and found it rated at 210 @2800 rpm. At that rpm your prop diam shouldn't be limited too much. John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Phillips" <jep(at)pcgbase.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00
Date: Jan 24, 2000
I've been watching this thread with interest. I have purchased a Lycoming HIO-360 for my CH-801 project. This engine was also made for a helicopter and is rated for a higher HP/RPM than other Lycoming 360 engines. I talked with several knowledgeable people before purchasing this engine. One person told me they are favored by people building aerobatics planes. One person on the Zenith mailing list raised a concern about the prop load on the bearing of this engine. Is what you are saying for the Franklin engine also true for this model of Lycoming? > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Livingston > John W Civ ASC/ENFD > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 8:42 AM > To: 'engines-list(at)matronics.com' > Subject: RE: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/22/00 > > > ASC/ENFD > > Rich, > > Their should be nothing wrong with engines ability to handle > prop loads. > I looked up a power curve I had for this engine and found it rated at 210 > @2800 rpm. At that rpm your prop diam shouldn't be limited too much. > > John > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2000
From: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net>
Subject: Re: mixture differences
n3773 wrote: > > > Archie - I have a 160 hp O-320 D2J in my RV-6A. It was rebuilt with new > ECI cyl assmb's and has 500+ hrs on it. I am getting 72 lbs compression > each cyl., any leakage is thru the oil breather. Cylinder #4 EGT always > reads the lowest, usually on the order of 100 degrees. This variance > changes of course based on climb-out, altitude, etc.... I assume #4 > cylinder runs richer than the rest. It's plugs are always towards the > black, oily side. CHT's are all within 10 degrees of being equal. Could I > run a hotter plug in #4 to help balance EGT's or is it more complicated > than that? Is this even worth worrying about? Kevin > Kevin Changing to a hotter spark plug on #4 cylinder will not affect it's EGT. It will cause the surface temperature (porcelain area around the center electrode) to run hotter. The extra heat will help the plug run cleaner. You may have good compression rings combined with a leaky oil control ring or a loose intake valve guide. If you remove the #4 intake runner, you can look in at the intake valve stem. If the guide is leaking, you will find a much larger build up of oily sludge on the valve when you compare it to the other intake valves. The lower EGT could be because the cylinder is running richer OR because of oil making it's way into that cylinder. Charlie Kuss ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: mixture differences
Date: Jan 24, 2000
> > Archie - I have a 160 hp O-320 D2J in my RV-6A. It was rebuilt with new > > ECI cyl assmb's and has 500+ hrs on it. I am getting 72 lbs compression > > each cyl., any leakage is thru the oil breather. Cylinder #4 EGT always > > reads the lowest, usually on the order of 100 degrees. This variance > > changes of course based on climb-out, altitude, etc.... I assume #4 > > cylinder runs richer than the rest. It's plugs are always towards the > > black, oily side. CHT's are all within 10 degrees of being equal. Could I > > run a hotter plug in #4 to help balance EGT's or is it more complicated > > than that? Is this even worth worrying about? Kevin > > > > Kevin > Changing to a hotter spark plug on #4 cylinder will not affect it's EGT. It > will cause the surface temperature (porcelain area around the center electrode) > to run hotter. The extra heat will help the plug run cleaner. You may have good > compression rings combined with a leaky oil control ring or a loose intake > valve guide. If you remove the #4 intake runner, you can look in at the intake > valve stem. If the guide is leaking, you will find a much larger build up of > oily sludge on the valve when you compare it to the other intake valves. > The lower EGT could be because the cylinder is running richer OR because of > oil making it's way into that cylinder. > Charlie Kuss Mr. Kuss has beat me to it with a response. I concur with his reply, but also take another compression test a bit more carefully to help isolation. (another peeve of mine is the misnomer of "compression test") This is technically a leak-down test and will indicate where the lack of cylinder sealing is occurring, not the engine's actual compression, but rather external pressurization. I have an 0-360 engine running, with 331 hrs on it and a total consumption of less that three quarts. Look for an upcoming article when the engine accumulates 700 hrs. It is not rocket science, just modern technology application. Will reveal all, including dyno results. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com>
Subject: Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there?
Date: Jan 24, 2000
> > One clue as to whether or not your engine shop has modern equipment: > If they lap valves to seat them, find another shop! > Archie Could you elaborate on this? I've done lots of hand lapping at home, but I didn't even know there were other ways. What sort of equipment would a modern shop have? Tedd McHenry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BERNDSENCO(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Subject: Re: Franklin engines
In a message dated 1/23/00 7:54:45 AM !!!First Boot!!!, engines-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes: > From: "J Livingston" <jliving(at)erinet.com> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 > > > Rich, > > I think these are good engines, but you are not going to get 220 HP out > of 350 cu ins at 2700 rpm. You will probably get 180 HP. That 220 HP > figure would have be at some thing like 3200 rpm. This is too fast for most > prop installations. I believe these engines were designed to run up to > 3200 rpm for helicopter installations. > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net> > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/19/00 > > > > > >Does anyone have an opinion on the 1973 Franklin 6A-350-C2 engine? > >I have a chance to buy one that is disassembled but the crank, camshaft > >& cylinders have been inspected for cracks & have passed. A new induction > >system will be thrown in as well as a stamped steel oil pan... > >all for $5000. Is this a good deal? BTW... it is 6 cyl, 220 hp, has 800 > >hours on it with a top overhaul just before the 800 hours. > > > >Thanks > >Rich > >rich(at)carol.net > > > > Rich, I have a Franklin 6A-350-C1 in my 1969 Maule M4 and love it. It is very smooth running due to 6 cylinders and surprisingly fuel efficient. 70% power gives me a fuel burn of 10.2 gal/hr and 65% yields 8.4 gal/hr. The engine does in fact put out 220 hp at 2800 rpm and weight is only 339 lbs with all accessories. The compression ratio is 10.5:1 and I suspect that is one way they get 220 hp out of 350 c.i. T.B.O. is around 2000 hrs as I recall. The engine may be a little longer than a Lycoming 360 but if it is, not by much; the cylinders are a lot smaller. The engine mount is a bed type, flywheel and alternator is at the rear so it has a small frontal area. It uses a larger oil cooler than a 360. Only drawback is that due to the high compression ratio you can't use auto gas in it. Everyone that I've talked to that has had a Franklin has had nothing but praise for it. It is definitely the engine of choice in the older Maules. As a matter of fact the Maule factory has a new airplane that they are currently test flying with a new Franklin 350 engine. If all goes well they will add the Franklin back to their engine options now that the engine is being produced again (in Poland now by PZL). For parts I get mine from A-1 Services in Jewett TX 903 626-5115. They are a small mom and pop outfit that specializes in Franklins. I would definitely consider using the Franklin in my next kit project. It is probably one of the best engines for the money ever made. Jon Berndsen berndsenco(at)aol.com Atlanta PS At idle the engine has a terrific low loping sound to it. Sounds like it has a racing cam in it! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there?
Date: Jan 24, 2000
> > One clue as to whether or not your engine shop has modern equipment: > > If they lap valves to seat them, find another shop! > > Archie > > Could you elaborate on this? I've done lots of hand lapping at home, but I > didn't even know there were other ways. What sort of equipment would a > modern shop have? > > Tedd McHenry First, Lapping valves is not a requirement by the manufacturers or by FAA regs, The only reason, read ONLY), to lap valves is to make up for all the misalignment accumulations, IE: Valve guides, Valve pilots, Chattering stones, Old grinders. (valve & seat), technique, etc. All, or some of these accumulated, are indicated when the valve is placed on the seat. If "gas station" type of equipment is used, this will happen. Most aviation shops will not spend $11,000 for a valve grinder, and around $28,000 for a seat machine, therefore, 1940's technology which results in the valves and seats to have these irregularities corrected by lapping. Would you polish your new car with gravel? What do you suppose the finish might look like? In racing engines, this means a loss of power, and would not be tolerated except in cases of emergency. Granted, most aircraft owners would not realize the difference, but it is there. I cannot speak for other shops, but the only aviation shop that I know of that emphasizes No Valve Lapping, is Monty Barrett. Personally, I would not even lap valves in my lawnmower. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2000
From: n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com>
Subject: leak down tests
When I tested my O-320 I noticed that the #1 cyl. gave the highest reading after TDC, 72 lbs, and that approaching TDC from the BTDC side it was as low as 60. I have been told that the piston can sort of get cocked in the tapered portion of the cylinder and give low readings. I would think that the valves in this portion of the cycle are closed and shouldn't be moving. What are your opinions on this? This is technically a > leak-down test and will indicate where the lack of cylinder sealing > is occurring, not the engine's actual compression, but rather > external pressurization. > > I have been unsuccessful in determining the cause for premature cylinder glazing on my O-320. I have been watching EGT's like a hawk and always had CHT's below 380 degrees, usually seeing 330 degrees, EGT's I run rich of peak which shows 1330, maybe 1380 near sea level. ECI had no explanation other than to say that CHT sensors don't measure barrel temps. (like they even make sensors that do!) What I see is loss of rpm (and top end speed). The last time I just pulled the jugs, honed them and put everything back together. The first time(300 hrs SN) I went the whole new rings/break-in route to the tune of $1000. I've been using Aeroshell 100W+. Kevin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: leak down tests
Date: Jan 24, 2000
> > When I tested my O-320 I noticed that the #1 cyl. gave the highest reading > after TDC, 72 lbs, and that approaching TDC from the BTDC side it was as > low as 60. I have been told that the piston can sort of get cocked in the > tapered portion of the cylinder and give low readings. I would think that > the valves in this portion of the cycle are closed and shouldn't be moving. > What are your opinions on this? > > This is technically a > > leak-down test and will indicate where the lack of cylinder sealing > > is occurring, not the engine's actual compression, but rather > > external pressurization. > > > > > I have been unsuccessful in determining the cause for premature cylinder > glazing on my O-320. I have been watching EGT's like a hawk and always had > CHT's below 380 degrees, usually seeing 330 degrees, EGT's I run rich of > peak which shows 1330, maybe 1380 near sea level. ECI had no explanation > other than to say that CHT sensors don't measure barrel temps. (like they > even make sensors that do!) What I see is loss of rpm (and top end speed). > The last time I just pulled the jugs, honed them and put everything back > together. The first time(300 hrs SN) I went the whole new rings/break-in > route to the tune of $1000. I've been using Aeroshell 100W+. Kevin Have you tested your valve springs? When overzealous valve/seat grinders remove too much material, this reduces spring pressure which CAN cause rpm loss. Are you using an oil additive? Are these Cermichrome? Our racing engines do not have honing marks in them, due to the types of rings we use, and they seat to about 95% within 8-10 minutes. When run-in on the dyno, they are ready to bolt in and race. Have had some problems with the Superior supplied rings for aircraft use, and found better results with Lycoming supplied. Two problems: Material and Diametrical concentricity. (the latter shows up when a ring is placed in a perfectly round cylinder and is hit with a backlight). Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2000
From: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net>
Subject: Re:190/200hp
IO-360? How to get there? > > One clue as to whether or not your engine shop has modern equipment: > > If they lap valves to seat them, find another shop! > > Archie > > Could you elaborate on this? I've done lots of hand lapping at home, but I > didn't even know there were other ways. What sort of equipment would a > modern shop have? > > Tedd McHenry Tedd, There is another problem not mentioned by Archie (I'm sure he's aware of it though) with lapping valves. The valve lapping compound has a tendency to get EVERYWHERE. Anyone familiar with using Neverseize, will understand. It is very difficult to clean it out of a valve guide if the compound makes it's way there. Now envision what your valve stem and valve guide will look like after a few hundred hours of operation with lapping compound pre-installed!!! Even if the oil washes it out, it is then loose in your lubrication system. Charlie Kuss RV-8 wings ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com>
Subject: Re:190/200hp
IO-360? How to get there?
Date: Jan 24, 2000
> > > Tedd, > There is another problem not mentioned by Archie (I'm sure > he's aware of it > though) with lapping valves. The valve lapping compound has a > tendency to get > EVERYWHERE. Anyone familiar with using Neverseize, will > understand. It is very > difficult to clean it out of a valve guide if the compound > makes it's way there. > Now envision what your valve stem and valve guide will look > like after a few > hundred hours of operation with lapping compound > pre-installed!!! Even if the oil > washes it out, it is then loose in your lubrication system. > Charlie Kuss > RV-8 wings Charlie: Thanks for the tip. Now here's where the rubber meets the road. I will probably overhaul my own 320 or 360. Other than hand lapping, what are my alternatives? I've always hand-lapped automotive valve seats, but I accept the arguments from you and Archie that it's an inferior method. Is my only good alternative to send them out to Monty Barrett to have the valves seated? Tedd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Leopold" <frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: A65 overhaul
Date: Jan 24, 2000
I am starting to overhaul a A65. I have been told that some people send the crank, rods. pins and pistons off to be balanced. My question is., is this really necessary for a low powered engine built in the 40's. If the engine was balanced would it really make much of a difference. Also does anyone have a good source for A65 parts. Gary frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2000
From: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net>
Subject: Re: Letter Abreviations was Re: Definition, pleez
Barry & fellow listers, IIRC means if I recall correctly. Here are some more common email abbreviations. Save these for future reference. Charlie Kuss Acronym Definition AFAIK As far as I know AFK Away from keyboard AKA Also known as AOL America OnLine ASAP As soon as possible ATM At the moment B4 Before BAK Back at keyboard BL Be back later BCNU Be seeing you BFN Bye for now BRB Be right back BTW By the way CFV Call for votes CU See you CUL See you later CUL8R See you later DYJHIW Don't you just hate it when... *eg* Evil grin 2F Face to face (also meeting in person) FAQ Frequently asked questions FWIW For what it's worth FYA For your amusement YI For your information G2P Gone to P... Usually followed by BRB *g* Grin GA Go ahead *gbh* Great big hug *gbh&k* Great big hug & kiss *gr&d* Grinning, running, & ducking *h* Hug *hb* Hug back HOJ Ha ha only joking HHOK Ha ha only kidding HHOS Ha ha only serious HIWTH Hate it when that happens IAE In any event IDK I don't know IMHO In my humble opinion IMnerHO In my not even remotely humble opinion IMnsHO In my not so humble opinion IMO In my opinion IOW In other words RL In real life IYKWIM If you know what I mean JASE Just another system error JK Just kidding (can also stand for joking) *k* Kiss kb* Kiss back L8R Later *l* Laugh *li* Laughing inside *lis* Laughing in silence lol* Laugh out loud NRN No reply necessary OBTW Oh, by the way OIC Oh I see OT Off topic OTOH On the other hand TTH On the third hand PD Public domain PMJI Pardon me, Jumping in (when you interrupt a conversation) PMFJI Pardon me for jumping in (same as above) REHI Hello again FD Request for discussion *rofl* Roll on floor laughing SN Real soon now RTM Read the manual *s* Smile *sb* Smiles back SITD Still in the dark OS Same old stuff SSDD Same stuff different day SW Shareware SYL See you later TANSTAAFL There ain't no such thing as a free lunch TGIF Thank God it's Friday IA Thanks in advance *tic* Tongue in cheek TNX Thanks TNX 1.0E6 Thanks a million TFN Ta-ta for now TTYL Talk to you later *veg* Very evil grin ves* Very evil smile *vwg* Very wicked grin *vws* Very wicked smile *w* Wink wg* Wicked grin WRT With regard to (also with respect to) WTH What the heck WYSIWYG What you see is what you get MMV Your mileage may vary YMMVG Your mileage may vary greatly ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2000
From: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net>
Subject: Re:190/200hp
IO-360? How to get there? > I will probably overhaul my own > 320 or 360. Other than hand lapping, what are my alternatives? I've always > hand-lapped automotive valve seats, but I accept the arguments from you and > Archie that it's an inferior method. Is my only good alternative to send > them out to Monty Barrett to have the valves seated? > Tedd, So long as you are aware of what will happen if lapping compound gets in the valve guide, you can take proper measures. I try to use minimal compound and I fill the port under the valve with shaving cream. This will help prevent splattered compound from getting in the guide. If any gets in the guide, you must make SURE you get it all out. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re:190/200hp
IO-360? How to get there?
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Hand lapping valves is a perfectly good method to seat the valves. It has been done for years and years and years. No everyone does not have the high dollar equipment to do the job perfectly but most engine shops do it by hand with virtually no problems. Sure you have to clean all the lapping compound off, but that is pretty much of a no-brainer. I don't know who Monty is, but he is not the only person building engines that go to TBO and beyond. Don't forget that thousands of people build their own engines with no problems at all. Build as perfectly as you can but remember NO engine is perfect. bed ----- Original Message ----- From: Tedd McHenry <tedd_mchenry(at)agilent.com> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 8:05 PM Subject: RE: Proper valve grinding technique was Re: Engines-List: Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there? > > > > > > > Tedd, > > There is another problem not mentioned by Archie (I'm sure > > he's aware of it > > though) with lapping valves. The valve lapping compound has a > > tendency to get > > EVERYWHERE. Anyone familiar with using Neverseize, will > > understand. It is very > > difficult to clean it out of a valve guide if the compound > > makes it's way there. > > Now envision what your valve stem and valve guide will look > > like after a few > > hundred hours of operation with lapping compound > > pre-installed!!! Even if the oil > > washes it out, it is then loose in your lubrication system. > > Charlie Kuss > > RV-8 wings > > Charlie: > > Thanks for the tip. > > Now here's where the rubber meets the road. I will probably overhaul my own > 320 or 360. Other than hand lapping, what are my alternatives? I've always > hand-lapped automotive valve seats, but I accept the arguments from you and > Archie that it's an inferior method. Is my only good alternative to send > them out to Monty Barrett to have the valves seated? > > Tedd > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net>
Subject: Re:190/200hp
IO-360? How to get there?
Date: Jan 24, 2000
I can't speak for all valve grinding compound but Clover Leaf melts when the combustion gases hits it so there isn't the problem that you are concerned about. I bought small can when I did my 39 Indian back in 1950 and still have a lot left as a little dab will lap in a valve gas tight. If you are getting it in the guides, then you are using way too much. Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact! (Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com) -----Original Message----- From: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net> Date: Monday, January 24, 2000 6:59 PM Subject: Proper valve grinding technique was Re: Engines-List: Re:190/200hp IO-360? How to get there? > >> > One clue as to whether or not your engine shop has modern equipment: >> > If they lap valves to seat them, find another shop! >> > Archie >> >> Could you elaborate on this? I've done lots of hand lapping at home, but I >> didn't even know there were other ways. What sort of equipment would a >> modern shop have? >> >> Tedd McHenry > >Tedd, > There is another problem not mentioned by Archie (I'm sure he's aware of it >though) with lapping valves. The valve lapping compound has a tendency to get >EVERYWHERE. Anyone familiar with using Neverseize, will understand. It is very >difficult to clean it out of a valve guide if the compound makes it's way there. >Now envision what your valve stem and valve guide will look like after a few >hundred hours of operation with lapping compound pre-installed!!! Even if the oil >washes it out, it is then loose in your lubrication system. >Charlie Kuss >RV-8 wings > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: A65 overhaul
Date: Jan 24, 2000
> > I am starting to overhaul a A65. I have been told that some people send the > crank, rods. pins and pistons off to be balanced. My question is., is this > really necessary for a low powered engine built in the 40's. If the engine > was balanced would it really make much of a difference. Also does anyone > have a good source for A65 parts. > Gary > frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net Absolutely! But not only those components, but anything attached to the crankshaft that rotates with it. Starter gears, drive gears, prop bolts, etc. Be sure that all machine work is performed first! IE: crank grinding, rod bushings, rod resizing, etc. You should also receive a balance card indicating the weights of the finished static components.(for possible future replacement part needs). When the engine is assembled and running, you should have the prop balanced in position. Ever wonder why so many exhaust pipes and alternator brackets crack? Vibration, or imbalance, is the greatest contributor. Also, balance the alternator if desired. My recommendation is to have it done by a reputable high performance shop. I have seen poor workmanship and accuracy come into my shop from some aviation related businesses. With respect to those that work to high standards, I must tell it like it is. Why must you send these items? Is there no one qualified near you? Shipping adds considerably to the cost. Stop by one of my forums at Oshkosh, I cannot address all aspects in one e-mail. "show and tell" works best. As a yardstick, for a complete 4 cylinder aircraft engine, provided the parts are clean, I charge $250. additional charges for cleaning, and magnaflux. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net>
Subject: Re: A65 overhaul
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Fresno Airparts has A-65 parts, page 3 TAP, 559-237-4863 Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact! (Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com) -----Original Message----- From: Gary Leopold <frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net> Date: Monday, January 24, 2000 7:23 PM Subject: Engines-List: A65 overhaul > >I am starting to overhaul a A65. I have been told that some people send the >crank, rods. pins and pistons off to be balanced. My question is., is this >really necessary for a low powered engine built in the 40's. If the engine >was balanced would it really make much of a difference. Also does anyone >have a good source for A65 parts. >Gary >frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re:190/200hp
IO-360? How to get there?
Date: Jan 24, 2000
----- > > I can't speak for all valve grinding compound but Clover Leaf melts when the > combustion gases hits it so there isn't the problem that you are concerned > about. I bought small can when I did my 39 Indian back in 1950 and still > have a lot left as a little dab will lap in a valve gas tight. If you are > getting it in the guides, then you are using way too much. > > Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact! > (Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com) To re-iterate, with accurate equipment, there is no need to scrape up perfectly nice seats. I do not know why people tolerate "dark ages" or "backyard" work in this day and age. I will get off my podium and end it, but would fire anyone that takes a beautiful surface, and keeps grinding until it's contours match to compensate for inferior equipment or technique. Find a good shop and have it done right! Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2000
From: n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com>
Subject: Re: A65 overhaul
At a recent RV builders meeting held at ECI (engine components inc) in Portland we were shown the eqipment they use to balance pistons, rods, and starter gear. They claimed that Lycoming now onlt uses three bins for various rod weights when it used to be five, so that imbalance is morely likely than before. Their balancing equipment looked very expensive, as did everything there, from valve grinders, guide reamers, crank grinders, etc.... They charge $300 for a 4 cyl. I believe. ---------- > From: Archie <archie97(at)earthlink.net> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Engines-List: A65 overhaul > Date: Monday, January 24, 2000 7:25 PM > > > > > > > > I am starting to overhaul a A65. I have been told that some people send > the > > crank, rods. pins and pistons off to be balanced. My question is., is this > > really necessary for a low powered engine built in the 40's. If the engine > > was balanced would it really make much of a difference. Also does anyone > > have a good source for A65 parts. > > Gary > > frgtdog(at)worldnet.att.net > > Absolutely! > But not only those components, but anything attached to the > crankshaft that rotates with it. Starter gears, drive gears, > prop bolts, etc. > Be sure that all machine work is performed first! > IE: crank grinding, rod bushings, rod resizing, etc. > > You should also receive a balance card indicating the > weights of the finished static components.(for possible > future replacement part needs). > When the engine is assembled and running, you should > have the prop balanced in position. > Ever wonder why so many exhaust pipes and alternator > brackets crack? > Vibration, or imbalance, is the greatest contributor. > Also, balance the alternator if desired. > My recommendation is to have it done by a reputable > high performance shop. I have seen poor workmanship > and accuracy come into my shop from some aviation > related businesses. With respect to those that work to high > standards, I must tell it like it is. > Why must you send these items? Is there no one qualified > near you? Shipping adds considerably to the cost. > > Stop by one of my forums at Oshkosh, I cannot address > all aspects in one e-mail. "show and tell" works best. > > As a yardstick, for a complete 4 cylinder aircraft engine, > provided the parts are clean, I charge $250. additional > charges for cleaning, and magnaflux. > Archie > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2000
From: n3773 <n3773(at)mciworld.com>
Subject: O-320 cyl glazing problems
> > > > When I tested my O-320 I noticed that the #1 cyl. gave the highest reading > > after TDC, 72 lbs, and that approaching TDC from the BTDC side it was as > > low as 60. I have been told that the piston can sort of get cocked in the > > tapered portion of the cylinder and give low readings. I would think that > > the valves in this portion of the cycle are closed and shouldn't be > moving. > > What are your opinions on this? > > I have been unsuccessful in determining the cause for premature cylinder > > glazing on my O-320. I have been watching EGT's like a hawk and always > had > > CHT's below 380 degrees, usually seeing 330 degrees, EGT's I run rich of > > peak which shows 1330, maybe 1380 near sea level. ECI had no explanation > > other than to say that CHT sensors don't measure barrel temps. (like they > > even make sensors that do!) What I see is loss of rpm (and top end > speed). > > The last time I just pulled the jugs, honed them and put everything back > > together. The first time(300 hrs SN) I went the whole new rings/break-in > > route to the tune of $1000. I've been using Aeroshell 100W+. Kevin > > Have you tested your valve springs? no, they were brand new cyl assemblies when it first occurred > When overzealous valve/seat grinders remove too much material, > this reduces spring pressure which CAN cause rpm loss. I have bled down the lifters and checked the push rod clearances. The lifters are all new as well as the cam. ECI said that they just "touched up" the valves and seats and didn't perform a "full grind". > Are you using an oil additive? Aeroshell 100W+ now has the H2AD additive included > Are these Cermichrome? no, straight steel. ECI's comments were that the pistons looked 2000 hrs old, not 200. I had to agree they looked pretty dark, down the piston skirts too, not just the top. I have always thought I spewed a lot of oil on the belly, but don't know how much can be attributed to aerobatic maneuvers, although I usually stay positive G's not having an inverted engine. > > Our racing engines do not have honing marks in them, due to the types of > rings we use, and they seat to about 95% within 8-10 minutes. When run-in > on the dyno, they are ready to bolt in and race. > > Have had some problems with the Superior supplied rings for aircraft use, > and found better results with Lycoming supplied. > Two problems: Material and Diametrical concentricity. (the latter shows up > when a ring is placed in a perfectly round cylinder and is hit with a > backlight). ECI mic'd my cylinders for roundness and taper and they were within limits. I don't know about the rings, or even what brand they supply with their assemblies. They told me that the gaps had been checked and that I could bolt the jugs on just as I had received them, so I did. I followed their booklet on break-in procedures and ran mineral oil for 50 hrs. Kevin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2000
From: Warren Gretz <gretz_aero(at)h2net.net>
list-aviation , list-avionics , list-beech , list-cessna , list-engines , list-ez , list-glasair , list-lancair , list-piper , list-tailwind , list-seaplane , list-yak , list-zenith
Subject: wire lacing string
Greetings to the List, I have eight spools of the wire lacing string I told many of you about a few weeks ago. If any of you are interested please call, leave a detailed message, or send an e-mail (off List), include your VISA or MASTER CARD number, expiration date of the card, your name, address, and how many rolls you want. FIRST EIGHT THAT CONTACT ME GET THE SPOOLS OF STRING. The spools of string are new and $12 ea. including shipping to a US address. This is a very low price for this product. What is this string anyway you ask! It is string or lacing tape used to tie up wires into bundles. It is the most light weight, and most inexpensive product for doing this job. I have used this type of material extensively and I really like it.. It is extremely fast to tie and use.-- Make a clove hitch around the bundle, and then a square knot to finish. I think you will like it as much as I do. It is self extinguishing polyester #MIL-T-43435B, Type II, Finish C, Size 3. In short this is what is used most often for this job. It is flat braided so it will not cut into or deform as badly as round string. The finish of this material makes knots stay tied. The spools are 500 yd. spools. Granted, a spool is enough to do many airplanes, but your will find many uses for this stuff as I have. Or, sell what you have left over to another builder when your are done. Thanks Warren Gretz Gretz Aero 303-770-3811 gretz_aero(at)h2net.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2000
From: Rich <rich(at)carol.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 01/24/00
Thanks to all for the Franklin engines responses. I think I'll go for it! Rich CH-801 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 1998
From: "James F. Cooper" <blugoos1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Continental A-65
I'm looking into building a Pietenpol using a Replicraft Quick Build Kit, and am hoping to power it with a Continental A-65. Do any of you know where I might find such an engine? Thank you, Jim Cooper ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2000
From: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net>
Subject: Re: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul; Possibilities
Vaso I apologize for the delay in responding, regarding alternative exhaust systems. I checked with Mike May at Willis Gliderport (1X4) . The exhaust system I saw on his new Giles 202 was the Sky Dynamics unit mentioned previously by Chris (see below). I was very impressed with the quality of this unit. Charlie Kuss > [List: About six weeks ago I posted "36 possibilities" for improving a > Lycoming (I)O-360 engine at overhaul, and asked for comments. Recently, > Christopher Huey replied privately, and I have his permission to post the > response. -Vaso] > > -----Original Message----- > From: christopher huey [mailto:clhuey(at)sprynet.com] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 10:19 PM > To: vaso(at)bovan.com > Subject: 200 Hp motor > > > I used the Sky Dynamics sump/induction/4-1 exhaust....all worth the money, I > do believe this system slightly increases HP as well as makes the engine > 7-10 lbs. lighter. I would stay with the Sky Dynamics exhaust as it fits the > sump and is $1024. It is a nice package...sorta expensive though. > > If you go with the Sky Dynamics sump, use a SkyTec (7.8lbs) starter and save > yourself some time over the B&C unit. I had trouble with the fit of their > starter. > Take care, > C.H. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2000
From: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net>
Subject: Re: RE: (I)O-360 Overhaul;
Possibilities Vaso Thanks for the quick reply. I just did a search for Sky Dynamics. They have a new web site at: http://www.skydynamics.com/ I'd like to comment on Power Flow Systems horsepower increase claims. They claim 15-25%, with the Cessna 172 showing the most impressive gains. Using a 150 HP O-320 Lycoming, the dyno shows that the Cessna exhaust (mostly the muffler) is so restrictive, that stock horsepower is reduced to 133 HP. This is a reduction of 17 HP over the Lycoming with a neutral (or whatever exhaust system Lycoming did THEIR tests with) exhaust system. The PFS exhaust increased HP to 157 HP. They are using a glass packed straight through muffler. This has MUCH less internal resistance than the conventional muffler that Cessna uses. This is how they gain back most of the lost HP. The TRUE horsepower gain is the additional 7 HP gained over the stock Lycoming. Seven horsepower gain on a 150 horsepower engine is nothing to sneeze at, mind you. It is ~5% gain. An RV with a High Country exhaust system will not lose 17 HP like the Cessna system does. Your TRUE gain will be a more realistic 7 HP. I noticed in PFS's literature that they charge almost $2,800 for an exhaust system for those certified ships. Have you asked them for a price quote for your GlaStar? Sky Dynamics 4 into 1 systems seem to range from $920-$1250. The Sky Dynamics exhaust for my RV sells for $1,024. You have to read the articles carefully to be sure you are comparing apples to apples. Charlie Kuss > Charlie: > > I've repeated my original posting below. The company claiming large > horsepower increases with their exhaust is Power Flow Systems > http://www.powerflowsystems.com/. See especially the page on dyno testing. > I understand Sky Dynamics actually makes the exhaust for Power Flow Systems, > but don't quote me on that... > > -Vaso > > _______________________________________________________ > > >Vaso > I've deleted your repost of the questions you had regarding how to rebuild > your > engine. Could you please tell me the name of the exhaust system company you > referred to in that post? Do you have any more info (web site??) on this > company > or their products? > snipped > *31 Install Maxi-Sump ? SkyDynamics sells this low-weight > (magnesium) sump and cold air induction system that claims to > reduce weight by 10lb+, and increases horsepower on an IO-360. > Cost is $2K+. > *32 Tuned exhaust ? Power Flow Systems (PFS) claims an > eyebrow-raising 10-15% increase in effective power output from a > Lycoming O-320. Lycon says they verified this power increase on > their test cell. The PFS exhaust is expensive - ~$2K+. > snipped > Comments on any of the above points welcomed. > Vaso ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2000
From: Vaso Bovan <vaso(at)bovan.com>
Subject: Re: RE: (I)O-360
Overhaul; Possibilities Charlie: I look on all these performance enhancement claims with a skeptical eye. I did exchange correspondence with Power Flow Systems last year and at that time they were willing to quote a lower price for experimental installations compared to STC'd installations. Has any comparison been made between High Country and Sky Dynamics exhaust system performance ? Does anyone else make tuned or semi-tuned exhaust systems ? Kent Passer's book "Speed with Economy" has several suggestions for exhaust system enhancement - jet nozzles, port mismatch, anti-reversion cones, etc, that I don't see implemented in commercially-available exhaust systems. -Vaso -----Original Message----- Vaso Thanks for the quick reply. I just did a search for Sky Dynamics. They have a new web site at: http://www.skydynamics.com/ I'd like to comment on Power Flow Systems horsepower increase claims. They claim 15-25%, with the Cessna 172 showing the most impressive gains. Using a 150 HP O-320 Lycoming, the dyno shows that the Cessna exhaust (mostly the muffler) is so restrictive, that stock horsepower is reduced to 133 HP. This is a reduction of 17 HP over the Lycoming with a neutral (or whatever exhaust system Lycoming did THEIR tests with) exhaust system. The PFS exhaust increased HP to 157 HP. They are using a glass packed straight through muffler. This has MUCH less internal resistance than the conventional muffler that Cessna uses. This is how they gain back most of the lost HP. The TRUE horsepower gain is the additional 7 HP gained over the stock Lycoming. Seven horsepower gain on a 150 horsepower engine is nothing to sneeze at, mind you. It is ~5% gain. An RV with a High Country exhaust system will not lose 17 HP like the Cessna system does. Your TRUE gain will be a more realistic 7 HP. I noticed in PFS's literature that they charge almost $2,800 for an exhaust system for those certified ships. Have you asked them for a price quote for your GlaStar? Sky Dynamics 4 into 1 systems seem to range from $920-$1250. The Sky Dynamics exhaust for my RV sells for $1,024. You have to read the articles carefully to be sure you are comparing apples to apples. Charlie Kuss > Charlie: > > I've repeated my original posting below. The company claiming large > horsepower increases with their exhaust is Power Flow Systems > http://www.powerflowsystems.com/. See especially the page on dyno testing. > I understand Sky Dynamics actually makes the exhaust for Power Flow Systems, > but don't quote me on that... > > -Vaso > > _______________________________________________________ > > >Vaso > I've deleted your repost of the questions you had regarding how to rebuild > your engine. Could you please tell me the name of the exhaust system company > you referred to in that post? Do you have any more info (web site??) on this > company or their products? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2000
From: Paul Humphries <paul.humphries1(at)virgin.net>
Subject: Belt reduction drives.
Can anyone tell me a URL for belt reduction drive components. I am going to use a BMW air cooled boxer in a Microlight (Ultralight in the States ?) and don't know of any supplier of parts. Thanks. Paul Humphries, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs., UK. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2000
From: Warren Gretz <gretz_aero(at)h2net.net>
list-aviation , list-avionics , list-beech , list-cessna , list-engines , list-ez , list-glasair , list-homebuilt , list-lancair , list-piper , list-rocket , list-sailplane , list-seaplane , list-tailwind , list-ultralight , list-warbird , list-yak , list-zenith
Subject: [Fwd: RV-List: Aeroelectric.com]
I wanted to pass this on to all of you. Warren Gretz Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 20:24:22 -0700 From: Warren Gretz <gretz_aero(at)h2net.net> Subject: Re: RV-List: Aeroelectric.com --> RV-List message posted by: Warren Gretz I just talked to Bob yesterday and asked him if his internet host/provider has a problem. They do. He said he has not been able to do anything since last Thursday. Today, Monday he was going to seek out a new provider that hopefully will provide continous service. It may be a few more days, but he will be back. Warren Gretz Fran Malczynski wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Fran Malczynski" > > Has any body else had a problem connecting to "Electric Bob's" website? I > printed off a document on it last week and haven't been able to connect > since. > > Fran Malczynski > RV6 (fuse) > Olcott, NY > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <quick503(at)aisp.net>
Subject: Stuff for sale
Date: Feb 09, 2000
Well, if you want to make a small fortune in aviation .......... start off with a large fortune. I didn't have a large fortune to start off with so all I have now is a lot of bills and some parts to sell. Anyone who has ever had a small business die a premature death knows how sad it can be, but ....... anyway here a list of the things I have for sale. I will consider almost any offer. Email me at quick503(at)aisp.net or call me @ (337) 365-3214. The only thing I won't part with is my MK III ! 1. Powerfin 3 blade prop, 65", 'B' blades. Less than 10 hrs use. I had it on my Quicksilver Sport II with a 503 and 3:1. Great prop! I kept it when I sold the airplane a few months ago. $395.00 2. Warp Drive 3 blade 66" with nickel leading edge Right turning tractor. Came off of a Kit Fox with a Rotax 532. Excellent condition. $375.00 3. New Warp Drive blade with nickel leading edge. Never used. 70" right turning pusher. $75.00 4. 3 1/4" VDO tach for point ignition. Very good condition. 2 5/8" hole. $ 40.00 5. Westach single EGT, new, 2 1/4 square. With threaded probe $50.00, without probe $40.00. 6. Single CHT, 2 1/4 square, used. Good condition. $30.00 with probe, $25.00 without probe. 7. Towable Rotax Engine Test Stand. First Class design. Comes with Powerfin 3 blade prop and extra 2 blade hub. About 90% complete. A steal at $1800.00. Email me for pictures. 8. Rotax 532 wit exhaust. Came off of a Kit Fox. Appears to be in very good condition. Owner said it was very low hours. Takes a prov 4 'B' box. $750.00 9. Sky-West David 620 V-Twin 4-stroke. 60 hp @ 6500 rpm. Bent intake valve but the rest is good. Less than 5 hrs. Uses stock Honda 620 parts. Includes Honda Manual. $250.00 or BO. 10. Warner Electric Linear Actuator. Used on amphib retract on my MK III. 12DC, 250 lb load. $75.00 11. 12V Stewart Warner fuel pump. $20.00 12. Mercury carb synchronizer sold by Bing. $30.00 13. Muffler assay p.n. 973-191 for 377-503. Very good condition. $125.00. 14.TEGAM Model 819 Digital Microprocessor Thermometer for Type K, J, and T thermocouples. Never used. Very accurate. Handheld and battery powered. Quit guessing if your CHT and Egt are accurate! $200.00 15. Shimpo DT-205B Hand held digital Tachometer. Battery operated, computer-circuitry-controlled, both contact and non-contact. Used 3 times. Very accurate and sturdy. Why guess if your tach is accurate? $200.00. 16. Rotax 503 single ignition, single carb for parts only. Has electronic ignition. Crank is bad and the intake flanges are damaged. Make Offer! Please let me know if any of this interest anyone. Cheers, Mike ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2000
From: Paul Humphries <paul.humphries1(at)virgin.net>
Subject: Sky-West engines
Can anyone tell me more about the Sky-West David 620 engine which I believe is based on a Honda unit. A web URL would aslo be appreciated. Thanks, Paul Humphries, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Feb 15, 2000
Subject: Internet Explorer and List Subscription Page Problem...
Listers, I have just identified a problem between any version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer and the email List Subscription Form found at http://www.matronics.com/subscribe Please note that this problem *ONLY* affects users of Internet Explorer! Netscape users are *not* affected by the issue. Users of Internet Explorer should use the Netscape browser for now until a work around can be developed. IMPORTANT: If you have tried to subscribe *or* unsubscribe from any of the following email lists using *Internet Explorer* since the announcement of the 7 new Email Lists this past weekend, your request was not properly received and you should resubmit the request using the Netscape Browser, or wait until a solution for the problem with Internet Explorer is completed. The Lists affected by the Internet Explorer issue are: RVCanada-List RVEurope-List Skymaster-List SmithMini-List Sonerai-List Tailwind-List Please note that the Netscape Browser *IS NOT* affected by this problem and all lists can be subscribed to and unsubscribed from without a problem. I will post a message to the Lists when I have come up with a solution to this problem. Sorry for the inconvenience, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Admin. -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Feb 15, 2000
"Internet Explorer and List Subscription Page Problem..." (Feb 15, 10:19am)
Subject: Re: Web Subscription Page Operation for Internet Explorer
Restored... Dear Listers, I have rewritten the web page and CGI code for processing List Subscription Requests to now be more compatible with command line limitations of Microsoft's Internet Explorer and some very old versions of Netscape. The page seems to be working fine now on whatever browser I try. Please feel free to resume your normal List Subscription habits. The URL is: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Admin. >-------------- > > >Listers, > >I have just identified a problem between any version of Microsoft's >Internet Explorer and the email List Subscription Form found at >http://www.matronics.com/subscribe Please note that this problem >*ONLY* affects users of Internet Explorer! Netscape users are >*not* affected by the issue. Users of Internet Explorer should >use the Netscape browser for now until a work around can be >developed. > >IMPORTANT: > >If you have tried to subscribe *or* unsubscribe from any of the >following email lists using *Internet Explorer* since the announcement of >the 7 new Email Lists this past weekend, your request was not properly >received and you should resubmit the request using the Netscape >Browser, or wait until a solution for the problem with Internet Explorer >is completed. The Lists affected by the Internet Explorer issue are: > > RVCanada-List > RVEurope-List > Sailplane-List > Seaplane-List > Skymaster-List > SmithMini-List > Sonerai-List > Tailwind-List > Ultralight-List > Warbird-List > Yak-List > Zenith-List > > >Please note that the Netscape Browser *IS NOT* affected by this problem >and all lists can be subscribed to and unsubscribed from without a >problem. > >I will post a message to the Lists when I have come up with a solution >to this problem. > >Sorry for the inconvenience, > >Matt Dralle >Matronics Email List Admin. >-------------- -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Feb 21, 2000
"Re: RV-List: O-360 A4M" (Feb 21, 5:22pm)
Subject: Re: O-360 A4M
Listers, Here are the only differences between the A1A that Van's sells and the A4M: * A4M has a stiffer crankshaft * A4M Uses Slick 4051 and 4050 Mags instead of the Bendix S4LN-21 and S4LN0-204. * A4M has special length bushings in prop flange * A4M has no provision for controllable prop * A4M dry weight: 261 lbs The A4M does in fact trace its roots from the A1A. The A4M's were used on the Cherokee 180 among others. For lots of good information on the roots of various engines, have a look at the following PDF file from the FAA web site. I printed out a copy and tacked it to the wall. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/edc23c1f1925ea3d852567620053a3c5/cf23de5a6b11e1968525670e00515ef6/$FILE/e-286.pdf Best regards, Matt Dralle RV-4 N442RV #1763 Instrument Panel 'n Stuff >-------------- >>Listers: >> >>I am on the road and don't have chapter 11 of the builders manual with me. >> >>Does the O360-A4M trace back to the A1A. I need to know if it will fit the >>8A and Van's said to trace it back. They thought it had rear injection and >>would not fit without modification??????? >> >>Thanks ! >> >>Len >>RV-8A, fuselage >>North Carolina (traveling in Denver) > >Len, > >To the best of my knowledge, my engine is now basically an A4M. It was >originally an O-360A4J, which does have an aft mounted carb which will NOT >fit an RV. Central Air Parts mounted a standard updraft carb mount sump on >it, along with a Marvel MA4-5 carb and it is a perfect fit for an RV8. I >have no experience with the -8A, so I cannot guarantee it will fit with the >nose gear up there, but I think you should be OK with this engine. The FAB >airbox and cowling inlet all mate up just fine on my -8, so there is no >reason to believe it would not work in the -8A. The Lycoming web sight has >the full chart of engine configurations somewhere on it which might clarify >the setup for you. > >Best of luck! >-------------- -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 2000
From: Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Rotax 912 for sale
Hi Listers; I have decided to upgrade to the 100 hp 912S and that leaves me with a used 912 for sale. Excellent condition. Price $US 5000.00. Mike ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2000
From: Warren Gretz <warrengretz(at)gretzaero.com>
list-aerobatic , list-aviation , list-avionics , list-beech , list-cessna , list-engines , list-ez , list-glasair , list-homebuilt , list-lancair , list-piper , list-rocket , list-rvcanada , list-seaplane , list-tailwind , list-warbird , list-yak , list-zenith
Subject: New Gretz Aero website!
Greetings to all, I am glad to announce that my new webpage is up and running. If you would like to see the aircraft products I offer, and the information I provide on options for equipment installed on aircraft, you may want to check out my website. Be sure to bookmark this site as it will continue to grow. The webpage address is: http://www.gretzaero.com I hope you find it interesting. Warren Gretz Gretz Aero ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Green" <stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com>
Subject: FW: Deisel engines
Date: Mar 05, 2000
I don't know about you, but for years I've been excited about aviation diesels. My experience flying overseas only made me want a diesel even more. But year after year I've been disappointed by missed deadlines and new promises that have yet to become reality. As homebuilders we can do something! If someone out there has a Peitenpol, or other airframe designed to operate with a heavy, low-power engine, we could put a Golf or Isuzu 4 cyl diesel engine on it. With a cogbelt PSRU and wooden prop, firewall forward would probably weigh 500 lbs (230 kg) and produce 40 to 80 hp. Not a screamer, to be sure, but it would certainly make a statement at Oshkosh, and earn the project mention in the press. No matter how dismal the real-life performance specs, they would be far better than the "probable" specs published by Zoche, Continental, Deltahawk, etc, because their engines have yet to fly. Jeff Green, stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com CH-801 just started Chattanooga, TN ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <quick503(at)aisp.net>
Subject: Stuff for sale
Date: Mar 05, 2000
Desperation forces sale! I guess I'm going to have to sell off parts of my MKIII. Here goes: BRS-5 900 Repacked 4/97. Never out of it's shipping box except to inspect. Looks absolutely brand new! With mounting hardware for a MKIII. New is $2495.00 Will sell for$1900 or B.O. Rotax 582, C box with 3.47:1 gears. Clutch, intake silencer, Rotax electric start, Exhaust with black Jet Hot Coating, Side mount exhaust kit, Warp Drive 3 blade prop with extended nickel leading edge, just overhauled by Warp Drive. Dual radiator system with mounts. This is the engine I built to put on my personal MKIII ( I'm an Authorized Rotax Repair Station ). The engine case, cylinders, head and gearbox have been acid etched, alodined and then painted black. It has a new crankshaft, rotary valve shaft, pistons, rings, pins and bearings. New seals, carb boots and new intake silencer. The electric starter is rebuilt and all the o'rings replaced. The carbs have been acid etched and clear alodined ( no more corrosion ) worn parts replaced and jetted for the intake silencer. The gearbox has been inspected and all the seals replaced. The clutch has about 100 hrs. This engine is better than new. Rotax 582, 'C' box (3.47:1), with Rotax electric start --- $5508.00 Intake Silencer w/mounts --- 167.00 Jet Hot --- 162.00 (entire exhaust new in May of 97, only used 1 season since ) Side exhaust --- 150.00 Clutch --- 470.00 Dual Radiator system w/mounts --- 600.00 Warp Drive prop with nickel LE --- 595.00 -------------- Total $7652.00 ( Adds up quick don't it ? ) Everything is new or in excellent condition except for one of the radiators which has been repaired. SAVE over $2000.00 and get all of this for $5500.00!!!!! Also have a good assortment of Rotax engine tools. Just give me a part # and if I have one it's yours for 30% off of new ! Call me @ (337) 367-8725 or e-mail at quick503(at)aisp.net Thanks, Mike ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Artdog1512(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 06, 2000
Subject: diesels ...
In a message dated 3/6/00 2:55:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, engines-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes: << I don't know about you, but for years I've been excited about aviation diesels. My experience flying overseas only made me want a diesel even more. >> well brother, let me put my 2.8 cents into this. i be a truck driver (tractor trailer) which is obviously powered by a diesel. yes, the engines dang near last forever and compared to gas engines put out gobs of torque relative to rpm. as far as rpm, you can't spin a propeller fast and you can't spin a diesel fast. it seems that would be a good match since you most likely wouldn't need a gear reduction. however, no one has figured out how to make a diesel light enough for aircraft use. there are a few companies, which you mentioned, that have made diesels for aircraft use, with mixed results. i feel that they'll (diesels) have to be as light as gasoline engines to be practical for aircraft use or you're just wasting your time. ............ tim how did i arrive at 2.8 cents? my 2 cents worth adjusted for inflation .... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mollard, Norman" <nwm(at)lubrizol.com>
Subject: diesels ...
Date: Mar 06, 2000
Not sure where you have looked yet. But have you seen the Deltahawk web site? Aviation diesel in development. I am signed up for one myself. To much advantage over a Lyc to be overlooked -----Original Message----- From: Artdog1512%aol.com(at)interlockp.lubrizol.com [SMTP:Artdog1512%aol.com(at)interlockp.lubrizol.com] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 9:02 AM To: engines-list%matronics.com(at)interlockp.lubrizol.com Subject: Engines-List: diesels ... In a message dated 3/6/00 2:55:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, I don't know about you, but for years I've been excited about aviation diesels. My experience flying overseas only made me want a diesel even more. >> well brother, let me put my 2.8 cents into this. i be a truck driver (tractor trailer) which is obviously powered by a diesel. yes, the engines dang near last forever and compared to gas engines put out gobs of torque relative to rpm. as far as rpm, you can't spin a propeller fast and you can't spin a diesel fast. it seems that would be a good match since you most likely wouldn't need a gear reduction. however, no one has figured out how to make a diesel light enough for aircraft use. there are a few companies, which you mentioned, that have made diesels for aircraft use, with mixed results. i feel that they'll (diesels) have to be as light as gasoline engines to be practical for aircraft use or you're just wasting your time. ............ tim how did i arrive at 2.8 cents? my 2 cents worth adjusted for inflation .... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2000
Subject: OIl in MP Gage
From: b green <rvinfo(at)juno.com>
I looked at my manifold pressure gage the other day and noticed a small puddle of oil in the bottom. I asked an IA and he said that he has seen it before, only on the 2 1/4 instruments, but didn't know what caused it. Anybody have any ideas?? Bruce Green ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2000
From: claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: Deisel engines
Jeff Green a crit : > I don't know about you, but for years I've been excited about aviation > diesels. Hi all. I'm new to the list. You can't be more excited than we are in Europe because of the taxes higher on Avgas than on diesel. There is a prototype flying since some months with a Isuzu 1.5D (from an Opel Corsa). This plane won a challenge of the highest miles per gallon on a 164nm triangular trip: Payload (lbs) 397 Fuel used (liter) 13 Time 1:52 Average speed (kt) 88 Span : 30.6 ft Length : 19.7 ft Empty weight : 784 lbs Gross weight : 1180 lbs Max speed : 119 kt VNE : 130 kt Vs0 : 43 kt Vs1 : 41 kt Tank : 80 liters Fuselage : wood + composite, wing : wood + dacron Engine : 1500cc, 67hp @4600rpm, 63hp@3600rpm, weight : 220 lbs (the 1700cc is identical, same weight, except the bore). Reductor : 48:80 with carbon-kevlar cogbelt. Prop : diam 69" More info (in french) and pictures on request (several Mb). Claude Plathey Gnolhac France CH701-912 25 hours hobbs Now rebuilding a 1949 czech Sokol w/Walter Minor. PS : Would like to know if there is a Pietenpol flying with a car engine else than the Ford or the Corvair. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Green" <stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com>
Subject: Re: Deisel engines
Date: Mar 06, 2000
>There is a prototype flying since some > months with a Isuzu 1.5D (from an Opel Corsa). I'm amazed! I thought that my idea was original! If my calculations are correct, fuel flow for the course was 1.8 gal/ hour. How does that compare with a Rotax of similar power? Also, you said that the engine weighs 220 lbs. I would have expected it to weigh closer to 220 kgs! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2000
From: Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: OIl in MP Gage
Hi Bruce; Yes, "oil" will collect in the guage if you do not have a "T" trap in the lowest part of the tube connecting it to the manifold. The trap should be checked at preflight and drained as required. If there is no trap the"oil" will fill up the guage but it wont stop it from working for some time. The problem is to get the oil back out of the guage. Fun stuff. Regards Mike b green wrote: > > I looked at my manifold pressure gage the other day and noticed a small > puddle of oil in the bottom. I asked an IA and he said that he has seen > it before, only on the 2 1/4 instruments, but didn't know what caused it. > Anybody have any ideas?? > > Bruce Green > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Guenther" <guenther(at)loeff.de>
Subject: Re: Deisel engines
Date: Mar 07, 2000
for pictures of the Opel diesel conversion see my report from the French Experimental fly in http://irlgmbh.com/homebuilt/INDEX.HTM loef > >There is a prototype flying since some > > months with a Isuzu 1.5D (from an Opel Corsa). ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ed0248(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 07, 2000
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 03/06/00
I'm not positive about this 'cause' for the oil in tour MP gauge, but here's a possibility: 1. Your engine is fairly high time, thus some wear in the valve guides and/or cylinders. 2. Uses 'just a bit' of oil. 3. When the engine is shut down hot, there is oil vapor in the air that is trapped in the cylinder, the valve train area, and the crankcase. 4. That oil saturated air has been distributed everywhere in the system, including the small line that goes to the manifold pressure gauge. 5. When everything cools down, the oil condenses and what is in the gauge settles to the bottom. 6. After a while, there is enough to be noticed. Why only on the small gauges? Actually it could happen on any of them, but since the smaller gauge has less volume, it shows up sooner. The suggestion of a trap 'tee' sounds plausable, and would support my theory. If your engine is a Lycoming, have your mechanic do the service bulletin on valve guide play. Also do a comparison hot/cold compression check, with a compression gauge like you used to do on your car. Then do a standard differential pressure check. After looking at these figures, you should be able to pretty much determine the health of your engine. Who knows, maybe your manifold pressure gauge is trying to tell you something. Ed Woerle A&P/IA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Artdog1512(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 11, 2000
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 03/07/00
In a message dated 3/11/00 3:54:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, engines-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes: << for pictures of the Opel diesel conversion see my report from the French Experimental fly in http://irlgmbh.com/homebuilt/INDEX.HTM loef >> great pictures Guenther. i impressed they made a diesel work. i always assumed a diesel would be too heavy for use in a small aircraft. ..... tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 12, 2000
From: "Joe Scheibinger" <joe(at)thesurf.com>
Subject: Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 11:03:26 -0600
Please remove me from the Pietenpole list digest Joe Scheibinger N. 9126 Lakeshore Drive Van Dyne, WI 54979 joe(at)thesurf.com / 920-929-9598 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 12, 2000
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2000
From: Kathryn & Jed Bichsel <jkbichsel(at)juno.com>
Remove Please. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2000
From: Paul Humphries <paul.humphries1(at)virgin.net>
Subject: Belt drives
Can anyone give me a URL for belt reduction drives. Suppliers of parts, how to make your own, sellers of complete kits etc - infact anything about belt drives. I want to use a BMW motorbike engine in the UK microlight class and the conversion plans call for a Rotac "C" type box which is difficult and expensive to buy. Thanks. Paul Humphries, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs., UK. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2000
From: Tim Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: Re: Belt drives
Here's one I had in my bookmarks. http://www.mts.net/~davejohn/index.html Tim Shankland Paul Humphries wrote: > > Can anyone give me a URL for belt reduction drives. > Suppliers of parts, how to make your own, sellers of complete kits etc - > infact anything about belt drives. > I want to use a BMW motorbike engine in the UK microlight class and the > conversion plans call for a Rotac "C" type box which is difficult and > expensive to buy. > Thanks. > > Paul Humphries, > Stoke-on-Trent, > Staffs., > UK. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 20, 2000
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Subject: Re: Belt drives
Paul, Try this address: http://www.raven-rotor.com Ask for a gentleman named Jeron, he makes a belt drives for 60 - 120 hp Suzuki 4 strokes. nice guy, very helpful. ...Richard Swiderski Paul Humphries wrote: > > Can anyone give me a URL for belt reduction drives. > Suppliers of parts, how to make your own, sellers of complete kits etc - > infact anything about belt drives. > I want to use a BMW motorbike engine in the UK microlight class and the > conversion plans call for a Rotac "C" type box which is difficult and > expensive to buy. > Thanks. > > Paul Humphries, > Stoke-on-Trent, > Staffs., > UK. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: michael lambert <mrl23(at)lamere.net>
Subject: the right engine for 701
Date: Mar 21, 2000
I am interested in talking to anybody that flies a Zenith CH-701 with an auto conversion power plant and is happy with the performance. The Rotax engines are too expensive !! I need an alternative. Thanks. Ch 701 ; both wings complete, workin' on flaperons. Michael Lambert Saco, Maine ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 21, 2000
From: JOEL CARROLL <drcarroll_2000(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: the right engine for 701
mike ,doug pahnke and i are building a zodiac like you asked about. save his email ldpahnke(at)netwitz.net, and azlso try the zodiac website. jkc --- michael lambert wrote: > > > > I am interested in talking to anybody that flies a > Zenith CH-701 with an auto conversion power plant > and is happy with the performance. The Rotax engines > are too expensive !! > I need an alternative. Thanks. > > Ch 701 ; both wings complete, workin' on flaperons. > > Michael Lambert > Saco, Maine > > > > through > > http://www.matronics.com/archives > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists > > Matronics! > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: VP4SkyDoc(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 22, 2000
Subject: Re: the right engine for 701
In a message dated 3/21/2000 8:34:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, drcarroll_2000(at)yahoo.com writes: > mike ,doug pahnke and i are building a zodiac like you > asked about. save his email ldpahnke(at)netwitz.net, and > azlso try the zodiac website. jkc > Mike, there are at leat 2 zodiacs running on Mazda 13B's Here is a copy of an e-mail I just sent to the RV-list... It was a little bit of a ramble, point is, check out the Mazda... > > uh...I really hate to ask stupid questions, but since I know next to nothing > about Lycosaurs every question I ask will be stupid. What is the difference > between an overhauled engine and a zero timed engine? I know brand new > would be zero time, but the O-320 in question has 2200TT so, I'm assuming it > can't be new. :) I'm confused, and I hate that so someone please > enlighten me. I thought I understood that a rebuild is top end, and a major > overhaul includes the bottom end. Now you throw in this zero timed > description and I'm completely lost again. :) Oh well, long time to go > before I buy one of these rediculously overpriced, overaged, out of date > dinosaurs....so I guess I don't really need to know yet. > > HS-403, 409 ready for prime.....HS-411 finished and waiting. HS-410 cut to > shape and deburred.....not bad for my first evening after work? I'm having > a blast. > > Bill Bill, The really short answer is that only the factory can zero-time an engine - working some special magic that the A&P's on the list can describe. I think it has to do with the crank shaft being replaced and most major parts being replaced, and most tolerances set to a higher standard - my impression is that not much will be left of the original engine. I notice your disrespect of the Lycosaurs demigod :-) Good for you, but please dont be too hard on them or they will raise prices again... ahh, go ahead, prices are going up anyway. Have you considered an alternative? I spent about 3 months researching the possibilities and came to the expected conclusions: 1) most reasonable alternatives can be made to work with enough time and effort (as evidenced by the fact that many are indeed working). 2) It seems that the extra effort and weight penalty and questionable (by some) reliability make them not really worth while. That is, until I found what I believe to be the exception. The Mazda 13B Rotary. This engine is running in no less than 5 RV's and many more are being planned. I am installing this engine and here is the skinny on what I feel is very reasonable estimate of what I am facing (now, after 6 months of research). 1) Power will be equal to or greater than an O-360. 2) Installed weight will be about the same as the 360, 3) It will take me an extra 2-4mos. to do the instillation 4) Fuel burn will be about the same (or possibly slightly better than) on O-360 run at similar power setting, 4) Because of the really experimental nature, the first 40 hrs are probably more likely to be associated with power plant failure - this is because of fuel, air, or spark problems in an original setup, NOT because of engine failure. 5) TBO will easily match real world experience with the Lycosaurs, and most likely far exceed Lyc TBO times. 6) Rebuilds will be measure in hundreds of dollars, not thousands. 7) instillation of an essentially zero-time engine, dual redundant electronic ignition and fuel injection and PSRU will cost under $10k. 8) You could also spend as little as $4k and it will take a little longer or you could spend $20k and get an engine that was 210hp, lighter than an O-360 and ready to install. 8) Maintenance costs will then be a mere fraction of Lycos costs. and here is the kicker 9) IMHO, a tested Rotary will be far more reliable and trouble free than a Lyc! "Pishaw!", say many on the list. But I am sure that there is no one who know a lot about the rotary and says that! Consider these points: The rotary has no valves to burn, no rods, no cams, no lifters all of which create a lot of drag. The E-shaft in the rotary (analogous to the crank) is bombproof!!! It never breaks or twists out. Drag racers tweak the 13B up to 900hp and use stock e-shafts without problem! While the e-shaft will be going at a brisk 5000-7000 rpm in most aircraft applications, the rotors are only turning 1/3 that speed, and have less acceleration forces than the pistons in the lyc!! The early(1970/ early 80's) problems that the rotary had with apex seal problems have been largely fixed thanks to a new material and aircraft oiling practice. Its true that the specific fuel burn will never be quite as good in the rotary as in the best pistons - but the 13B can still beat the Lyc in specific fuel burn. Anyway, thanks for getting me started. If I have at all peaked your interest, I urge you to do just a little research on your own. I started (thanks to the recommendations of someone on this list) with a subscription and back issues of Contact! magazine. This is a story of the trial and tribulations of many different auto conversions. If you want to jump right into researching the rotary, I recommend the conversion book by Tracy Crook, who put 900 hrs on his RV-4 powered by a junkyard 13B. When he tore the engine down to inspect - it was still pristine. A training gyrocoptor has 2700 hrs of hard duty on a junkyard 13B that was rebuilt once at 1000 hrs (for a few hundred bucks). Tracy has become so enthraled with the 13B (like I have - it is the same feeling as the feeling I got when I finally realized that it was absolutely the right decision to build an RV) that he has developed several excellent products to make the instillation easier. See his website at: www.rotaryaviation.com Powersport as making a firewall forward package for the RV's. David Atkins makes engines and accesories and flys a 13B powered RV-6. There are a couple of e-mail lists about the rotary similar to this RV list. And I maintain a roster of 90+ people who are installing a rotary in their aircraft (and there are many more, especially the already flying ones, who are not on my roster). My website has links to the other sites I mention. http://members.aol.com/RotaryRoster/index.html Now its time for bed... Dave Leonard RV-6 QB, N4VY (reserved) Fuselage Mazda 13B ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Green" <stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com>
Subject: the right engine for 701
Date: Mar 22, 2000
Anyone considering alternative powerplants should have already perused Gregory Travis' web site. You haven't? Well, at least take the time to read his excellent article at http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/article2.html. You may realize the folly of the following statement made in reference to Lycomings and Continentals: "...before I buy one of these rediculously overpriced, overaged, out of date dinosaurs..." Don't worry, Bill. We woun't hold that tirade against you. We're all part of this list because we want to learn. Concerning the Mazda 13B rotary engine--at this point, it is the only alternative engine (automotive conversion) that I would even consider for my CH-801. I agree that the E-shaft is bombproof, the simplicity of the design and the good power to weight ratio is intriging. But having read Contact! I also realize that a whole lot of engineering, testing, and trial and error goes into developing an installation that is properly cooled, and that gives the reliable service that one would be crazy not to demand. I don't pretend to have the knowledge or experience to accomplish that. Besides my own demands for performance and reliability, the issue of servicability and resale value also cause me to tend toward the "Lycosaur." All the best to you as you search for the right engine for your project. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: the right engine for 701
Date: Mar 22, 2000
Jeff; I build racing engines for a living. Auto and Aircraft. The greater limiting factors in hp improvements to aircraft engines are the fuel system, Induction system and Ignition, but foremost is the cylinder head designs. Remember these were designed 60-70 years ago, and have improved very little in that time. In some cases, installing smaller diameter valves will improve hp. We have proven it on the dyno. I personally believe in the rotary. How about an easy 160hp out of an unmodified 80 cu.in. engine? Check out rotaryeng(at)earthlink.net Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Green" <stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com>
Subject: Rotary vs. LyCon
Date: Mar 22, 2000
Archie, thanks for your reply. I don't discount anything you say. For sure, the Ly-Cons are old designs, and there's a lot of room for improvement. But even so, performance is not too shabby according to Travis (http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/article2.html). Can you prove his figures wrong? If so, show us how so we can all be better informed. How about an easy 160hp out of an unmodified 80 cu.in. [rotary] engine? How long will it last? Is that TBO theoretical or emperical? Based on what I've seen of other rotary engine installations, your easy 160hp FWF will weigh close to the same as an O360 FWF, and since I don't have your expertise to build it myself, you'll charge me about the same as I'd pay for the overhauled Lycoming. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Archie > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 9:17 PM > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Engines-List: the right engine for 701 > > > Jeff; > I build racing engines for a living. > Auto and Aircraft. > The greater limiting factors in hp improvements to > aircraft engines are the fuel system, Induction system > and Ignition, but foremost is the cylinder head designs. > Remember these were designed 60-70 years ago, > and have improved very little in that time. > In some cases, installing smaller diameter valves will > improve hp. We have proven it on the dyno. > I personally believe in the rotary. How about an easy > 160hp out of an unmodified 80 cu.in. engine? > Check out rotaryeng(at)earthlink.net > Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: VP4SkyDoc(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 23, 2000
Subject: Re: Rotary vs. LyCon
In a message dated 3/22/2000 7:15:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com writes: > How about an easy 160hp out of an unmodified 80 cu.in. [rotary] engine? How > long will it last? Is that TBO theoretical or emperical? Based on what I've > seen of other rotary engine installations, your easy 160hp FWF will weigh > close to the same as an O360 FWF, and since I don't have your expertise to > build it myself, you'll charge me about the same as I'd pay for the > overhauled Lycoming. > Well, now we are into a matter of semantics. What do we mean by easy and unmodified? Any engine that was built for one application will have to be changed to some extent... but that is not necessarily bad. I'll make comparisons to installing a rebuilt Lyc. To put in a Mazda in an RV, you could expect to do the following: 1) find and buy a used engine Time - availability is comparable but Mazda=$400-$800 You fill in $$$ for the Lyc. 2) Have the engine torn down and inspected and rebuilt. Mazda $3000 for mostly new parts. Lyc = $$$$$ Like with the Lyc, some will feel comfortable doing this themselves. There is a great video available for the Rotary showing this process (as I'm sure there is for the Lyc too). We are the same so far except for cost. Has it been easy? Now here are the extra things you must do for the Mazda conversion, all detailed in Tracy Crooks conversion manual... 1) Disable the stock oil injection - a simple process that takes about an hour as part of the rebuild (either by you or someone else). 2) Older engines will require an easy mod to one of the coolant gaskets. 3) Now, to give yourself 10-20 extra HP, you could have the intake ported for several hundred $, but we are still way under what you have spent for the overhauled Lyc and it hasn't been any more difficult at all. How does this affect reliability? Well, ported cars putting out 350 hp with no oil injection mod are known to blow apex seals. However, at less than 230 hp in the aircraft with the oil mod it is a non factor IMHO, but no one can say for sure. 4) You will have to modify or rebuild your engine mount (yup, this is a big pain). However, one builder just installed an engine using an adapter that fit directly on the stock dynafocal. I am hoping that the machinist who made it will make some more of these sub-mounts. 5) You will have to supply fuel, spark and air. Tracy Crook makes an engine controller which supplies electronic ignition based on the stock crank angle sensor. It also provides cockpit adjustable electronic fuel injection. There are two completely independent computers which can each run the two injectors and two spark plugs in each combustion chamber. There is also a third limp home mode. The whole system costs under a $1000. There will soon also be a monitor showing Fuel flow (solving the EFI fuel flow problem) Total fuel, MPG, RPM, and MAP. Try finding that for a Lyc!!! Supplying air is a little tougher. Tracy supplies instructions on making an intake from stock parts, and a couple of vendors are supplying bolt on manifolds. 6) Exhaust needs to be made custom (so far), a couple of suppliers do this for RV's as well. 7) Cooling is a hassle. This is where time and weight will be gained or lost. I haven't heard of anyone who never got it to work. But at least you wont have to do any baffling. You also get the advantages of liquid cooling (no shock cooling, less cooling drag possible) and disadvantage (another system to fail) and still stay at the weight/CG of the designed engine. So, what's the bottom line? IMHO An easily modified uncareful instillation will produce about 160 hp. Now be careful with the instillation, tune the intake and exhaust, add a pressure phlem, and maybe some street porting and get up to 210 hp. The instillation will weigh a little more or less than the Lycs (remember, the 320 and 360 are only about 10# apart). There should be plenty of space in the cowl of an RV6 or 8 to add turbocharging and get around 250 hp. (the stock turbo in the car is rated at 285hp.) Yup, it takes a little extra effort and time, but in the end you will spend less for a considerably better product. Some guys have gone to a lot more effort than this to install a 200 hp IO-360 in their RV-6(A). Is it worth it? Is it worth it to build an RV instead of buying that Katanya, or Cirrus, or Cessna? I think so. Just like building the RV, it doesn't take an engineering degree or engine expertise (I have never done more than change my oil), just a little extra love.. :-) Someone asked about justification for 2000+ TBO. Theoretical? Yes. But not like someone calculated it out on a CAD machine. One engine in a gyro is at 1700 SMOH and going strong. Tracy Crook ran his first engine for almost 900 hrs and had essentially no measurable wear, let alone reduction in hp, compression or increase in EGT's. He also burned no measurable oil between oil changes (every 50 hrs). Ever heard of a Lyc that did that? A few other engines are in the 500 hr range (and counting) with similar results. The oil injection mod is critical. If anyone owns an RX-7 that you want to keep around for 3-4 hundred thousand miles, consider making this mod in your car. Someone else mentioned resale value. Good point. Personally, I would much rather have a proven rotary installation over a Lyc any day. But I am the minority and will be for quite some time. My RV is a life long project/investment. I don't plan to sell for several reasons (liability, loss of my baby, never want to be this consumed with a hobby again etc..) But if you think there is a good possibility you will someday sell, looks like you are stuck with a Lycosaur. Now, the ramblings you have just heard are those of a bookworm who is really just beginning his project (gads). Please don't take my word for any of this. I have found my engine research and tinkering to be as rewarding as working on my RV. (talk to me again in a couple years ;-). The research really isn't that hard. The only reason that I did it was because I was off in Japan for six months with nothing else to do. But now I have seen the light and it goes hmmmmmmmmm instead of boing boing boing. Dave Leonard Rotary RV-6 N4VY ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Green" <stol_pilot(at)myezmail.com>
Subject: Rotary vs. LyCon
Date: Mar 23, 2000
Again lots of great facts, Dave. I've read them all myself, and that's why as I said earlier, the only conversion I would even consider is the Rotary. Talk to me again when you've actually started working on the installation, once you've gained some experience beyond changing oil! Tracy Crook has had good success with his engine, but he has spent more time just on his web site then I have in my CH-801 to date! And his engine hasn't gone beyond 900 hours. So best of luck with your project. If you're successful, maybe I can borrow what you've learned and save myself a few hundred hours of development time! Jeff Green CH-801 in progress ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Rotary vs. LyCon
Date: Mar 23, 2000
You hit the nail on the head, Dave additionally: More efficient cooling will come with time. (thanks to homebuilders) I am really "turned off" by those that are concerned with resale, this is becoming less of an issue as more of our "experimental" aircraft hit the skies and show what REALLY can be done. And, as you indicated, it is not of concern to REAL homebuilders. The clock is ticking for all of us. Let's just enjoy it while we can, rather than suffer the "scrooge" syndrome. Archie > Well, now we are into a matter of semantics. What do we mean by easy and > unmodified? Any engine that was built for one application will have to be > changed to some extent... but that is not necessarily bad. I'll make > comparisons to installing a rebuilt Lyc. To put in a Mazda in an RV, you > could expect to do the following: 1) find and buy a used engine Time - > availability is comparable but Mazda=$400-$800 You fill in $$$ for the Lyc. > 2) Have the engine torn down and inspected and rebuilt. Mazda $3000 for > mostly new parts. Lyc = $$$$$ Like with the Lyc, some will feel comfortable > doing this themselves. There is a great video available for the Rotary > showing this process (as I'm sure there is for the Lyc too). > > We are the same so far except for cost. Has it been easy? Now here are the > extra things you must do for the Mazda conversion, all detailed in Tracy > Crooks conversion manual... > 1) Disable the stock oil injection - a simple process that takes about an > hour as part of the rebuild (either by you or someone else). > > 2) Older engines will require an easy mod to one of the coolant gaskets. > > 3) Now, to give yourself 10-20 extra HP, you could have the intake ported > for several hundred $, but we are still way under what you have spent for the > overhauled Lyc and it hasn't been any more difficult at all. How does this > affect reliability? Well, ported cars putting out 350 hp with no oil > injection mod are known to blow apex seals. However, at less than 230 hp in > the aircraft with the oil mod it is a non factor IMHO, but no one can say for > sure. > > 4) You will have to modify or rebuild your engine mount (yup, this is a big > pain). However, one builder just installed an engine using an adapter that > fit directly on the stock dynafocal. I am hoping that the machinist who made > it will make some more of these sub-mounts. > > 5) You will have to supply fuel, spark and air. Tracy Crook makes an engine > controller which supplies electronic ignition based on the stock crank angle > sensor. It also provides cockpit adjustable electronic fuel injection. > There are two completely independent computers which can each run the two > injectors and two spark plugs in each combustion chamber. There is also a > third limp home mode. The whole system costs under a $1000. There will soon > also be a monitor showing Fuel flow (solving the EFI fuel flow problem) Total > fuel, MPG, RPM, and MAP. Try finding that for a Lyc!!! Supplying air is a > little tougher. Tracy supplies instructions on making an intake from stock > parts, and a couple of vendors are supplying bolt on manifolds. > > 6) Exhaust needs to be made custom (so far), a couple of suppliers do this > for RV's as well. > > 7) Cooling is a hassle. This is where time and weight will be gained or > lost. I haven't heard of anyone who never got it to work. But at least you > wont have to do any baffling. You also get the advantages of liquid cooling > (no shock cooling, less cooling drag possible) and disadvantage (another > system to fail) and still stay at the weight/CG of the designed engine. > > So, what's the bottom line? IMHO An easily modified uncareful instillation > will produce about 160 hp. Now be careful with the instillation, tune the > intake and exhaust, add a pressure phlem, and maybe some street porting and > get up to 210 hp. The instillation will weigh a little more or less than the > Lycs (remember, the 320 and 360 are only about 10# apart). There should be > plenty of space in the cowl of an RV6 or 8 to add turbocharging and get > around 250 hp. (the stock turbo in the car is rated at 285hp.) > > Yup, it takes a little extra effort and time, but in the end you will spend > less for a considerably better product. Some guys have gone to a lot more > effort than this to install a 200 hp IO-360 in their RV-6(A). Is it worth > it? Is it worth it to build an RV instead of buying that Katanya, or Cirrus, > or Cessna? I think so. Just like building the RV, it doesn't take an > engineering degree or engine expertise (I have never done more than change my > oil), just a little extra love.. :-) > > Someone asked about justification for 2000+ TBO. Theoretical? Yes. But not > like someone calculated it out on a CAD machine. One engine in a gyro is at > 1700 SMOH and going strong. Tracy Crook ran his first engine for almost 900 > hrs and had essentially no measurable wear, let alone reduction in hp, > compression or increase in EGT's. He also burned no measurable oil between > oil changes (every 50 hrs). Ever heard of a Lyc that did that? A few other > engines are in the 500 hr range (and counting) with similar results. The oil > injection mod is critical. If anyone owns an RX-7 that you want to keep > around for 3-4 hundred thousand miles, consider making this mod in your car. > > Someone else mentioned resale value. Good point. Personally, I would much > rather have a proven rotary installation over a Lyc any day. But I am the > minority and will be for quite some time. My RV is a life long > project/investment. I don't plan to sell for several reasons (liability, > loss of my baby, never want to be this consumed with a hobby again etc..) > But if you think there is a good possibility you will someday sell, looks > like you are stuck with a Lycosaur. > > Now, the ramblings you have just heard are those of a bookworm who is really > just beginning his project (gads). Please don't take my word for any of > this. I have found my engine research and tinkering to be as rewarding as > working on my RV. (talk to me again in a couple years ;-). The research > really isn't that hard. The only reason that I did it was because I was off > in Japan for six months with nothing else to do. But now I have seen the > light and it goes hmmmmmmmmm instead of boing boing boing. > > Dave Leonard > Rotary RV-6 N4VY ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 24, 2000
From: claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Walter Minor
Hi. I'm looking for the technical documentation of the 105hp Walter Minor 4-III engine. Is there anything common between Gipsy Minor and Walter Minor? Thanks Claude ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Apr 06, 2000
Subject: NOTICE: Matronics Web Server Back Online...
Dear Email Listers, The Matronics Web and FTP server is finally back online! What a nightmare... But at least its finally done and in all honesty the system is running much better. Everything should be working now including the Search Engine, Archive Browser, various List-related pages, Matronics Product Pages, Online Ordering, Real Video server and Contribution pages. Again, I'm sorry it took so long to get things back - way longer than I ever intended. Have fun! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Admin. -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Apr 30, 2000
Subject: PLEASE READ: Network Problems To Matronics...
Dear Listers, My ISP is upgrading their network today 4/30 and tomorrow 5/1. I noticed that Nameservice (DNS) went down last night around 3am which causes all sorts of problems. If your message post was rejected between about 3am 4/30 and 1pm 4/30, please repost as it was rejected do to the DNS being down. I've redirected my systems to a different DNS server in the mean time and things seem to be working right now. In any case, be aware that there may be continuing issues over the next couple of days both posting email messages and accessing the web server. My ISP *promises* that things are going to be so much better after the upgrade! We'll see... ;-) Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Admin. -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds discuss events, Small minds discuss people... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ed0248(at)aol.com
Date: May 11, 2000
Subject: Engines-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 05/10/00
I finally did it! I ran out of room for my 'toys' and projects. To make room for my rapidly expanding collection of AirBike and Sky Scout parts (to say nothing of a bit of extra money to spend on them), I have to get rid of my O200 project engine. It was on my '66 150 until two years ago, when I was able to buy a low-timer off a wreck. I had plans to rebuild this engine and sell it, but you know how projects go. Anyway, it is an O200-A, pull start, with 2200 SCMOH. One cylinder has less than 40 hours on it, and the engine was running strong when I pulled it. Comes with Slick mags, carb, starter, generator, and vacuum pump. This isn't some dusty 'anchor' sitting in the corner of the shop. I've kept it covered and is clean, as when removed. Oh, yeah...I'm asking $4200 OBO, and I think I have enough wood laying around to build a shipping box for it. Of course shipping will be borne by buyer. E-mail me at Ed0248(at)aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Johnny Johnson" <bbds(at)wiktel.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 05/10/00
Date: May 11, 2000
Where are you located? Johnny Johnson ----- Original Message ----- From: <Ed0248(at)aol.com> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:07 AM Subject: Engines-List: Engines-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 05/10/00 > > I finally did it! I ran out of room for my 'toys' and projects. To make > room for my rapidly expanding collection of AirBike and Sky Scout parts (to > say nothing of a bit of extra money to spend on them), I have to get rid of > my O200 project engine. It was on my '66 150 until two years ago, when I was > able to buy a low-timer off a wreck. I had plans to rebuild this engine and > sell it, but you know how projects go. Anyway, it is an O200-A, pull start, > with 2200 SCMOH. One cylinder has less than 40 hours on it, and the engine > was running strong when I pulled it. Comes with Slick mags, carb, starter, > generator, and vacuum pump. > > This isn't some dusty 'anchor' sitting in the corner of the shop. I've kept > it covered and is clean, as when removed. > > Oh, yeah...I'm asking $4200 OBO, and I think I have enough wood laying around > to build a shipping box for it. Of course shipping will be borne by buyer. > > E-mail me at Ed0248(at)aol.com. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Phillips" <jep(at)pcgbase.com>
Subject: HIO360
Date: May 12, 2000
Work has pulled me away from my Zenith 801 project. I've decided to buy a plane instead of build one. I have a Lycoming HIO-360-C1A 205HP 279 TTSN engine for sale. It came out of a helicopter that had a training accident. The engine is at Mattituck right now getting a complete inspection. Needless to say, it will be like new when they're done with it. I haven't decided on the price until I see the final bill from Mattituck, but if you're interested let me know. John E. Phillips jep(at)pcgbase.com (613)762-8878 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2000
From: "J. Davis" <jd(at)lri.sjhc.london.on.ca>
Subject: 582 EGTs
Greetings... I'm flying a Zenair CH701 with a new (~35 hours now) Rotax 582 mod 99, a 'B' gearbox, and a 3 blade 68" Ivoprop currently set to 'neutral', which is 10 degrees of pitch. It pulls 6450 during take-off and climb out, which is close to the 6500 max h.p. figure that Rotax recommends. The problem I am having is that between about 5400 and 5900 rpm, it runs lean, and the EGTs will climb quickly over the suggested max of 1200 F. At 6000, it maintains 1180 or so, which is good, but I have to be careful not to go into the lean range. The E.I.S. system is great, and reminds me quickly to either increase to 6000 or more, or reduce down below 5400 or so. The first thing I tried was to drop the needle clip (Bing carbs) down from the 3rd notch to the 4th (second up from bottom to the bottom notch). This richened the mixture at 3/4 to full throttle, and I no longer had an over-ranging EGT problem. However, EGT temps were down below 1100, and fuel 'milage' went from 16-17 liters/hour to 22-23. Essentially running too rich. I know that there are different tapers available for the needles. Just wondered if any other 2-stroke pilots have run into this sort of situation, and have suggestions as to a fix. Ideally, I would like to see EGT temps at around 1175 in that range which is now lean, and no temps at any rpm > 1200. Thanks... Regards, J. | J. Davis, M.Sc. (comp_sci) | email: jd(at)uwo.ca | | SysMgr, research programmer | voice: (519) 646 6100 x64166 | | Lawson Research Institute | fax: (519) 646 6135 | | London, Ontario | lriweb.sjhc.london.on.ca/~jd | When I was crossing the border into Canada, they asked if I had any firearms with me. I said, "Well, what do you need?" --- Steven Wright ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Nick Nafsinger" <nicknaf(at)prodigy.net>
Subject: 582 EGTs
Date: May 25, 2000
Disposition-Notification-To: "Nick Nafsinger" I have a 582, B box, and 62 inch Ivo..... Nearly the same set up on my Titan Tornado. My suggestion is to spend the 2-3 hundred (for and get the in-flight adj. Needles. You get the best of both worlds, good fuel econ, and the ability to produce the most power at ANY altitude. I think you are going to have a very difficult time matching the different needle tapers... especially with the constantly changing temperature and weather. JMTC Nick Nafsinger nicknaf(at)prodigy.net -----Original Message----- From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of J. Davis Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 4:48 AM Subject: Engines-List: 582 EGTs Greetings... I'm flying a Zenair CH701 with a new (~35 hours now) Rotax 582 mod 99, a 'B' gearbox, and a 3 blade 68" Ivoprop currently set to 'neutral', which is 10 degrees of pitch. It pulls 6450 during take-off and climb out, which is close to the 6500 max h.p. figure that Rotax recommends. The problem I am having is that between about 5400 and 5900 rpm, it runs lean, and the EGTs will climb quickly over the suggested max of 1200 F. At 6000, it maintains 1180 or so, which is good, but I have to be careful not to go into the lean range. The E.I.S. system is great, and reminds me quickly to either increase to 6000 or more, or reduce down below 5400 or so. The first thing I tried was to drop the needle clip (Bing carbs) down from the 3rd notch to the 4th (second up from bottom to the bottom notch). This richened the mixture at 3/4 to full throttle, and I no longer had an over-ranging EGT problem. However, EGT temps were down below 1100, and fuel 'milage' went from 16-17 liters/hour to 22-23. Essentially running too rich. I know that there are different tapers available for the needles. Just wondered if any other 2-stroke pilots have run into this sort of situation, and have suggestions as to a fix. Ideally, I would like to see EGT temps at around 1175 in that range which is now lean, and no temps at any rpm > 1200. Thanks... Regards, J. | J. Davis, M.Sc. (comp_sci) | email: jd(at)uwo.ca | | SysMgr, research programmer | voice: (519) 646 6100 x64166 | | Lawson Research Institute | fax: (519) 646 6135 | | London, Ontario | lriweb.sjhc.london.on.ca/~jd | When I was crossing the border into Canada, they asked if I had any firearms with me. I said, "Well, what do you need?" --- Steven Wright ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Brian Depew" <brianrdw(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 06/15/00
Date: Jun 16, 2000
remove from list please, all lists thanks, brian. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: O-290 & O-300 vs. O-320
Date: Jul 18, 2000
Try rotaryeng(at)earthlink.net you might be surprised at the power derived from 61 cu.in. from an engine that humms like an electric motor, and is becoming very popular. Archie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randall Henderson" <randallh(at)home.com>
Subject: Room at OSH available
Date: Jul 23, 2000
Well, my on-again off-again plans for OSH are off again, at least for most of it, so the room I had reserved will be available. This is a room with a queen bed in a nice house with central air. The hostess, Sharon Hawkins, provides continental breakfast. She works the EAA too so it should be possible to catch a ride with her to and from the show when she goes. The house is close to a bus line so you can get to/from that way too. Its available for the whole show. If interested, contact Sharon Hawkins, 920-232-8554. Please email me if you get the room so I can get my deposit back. Randall Henderson randall(at)edt.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randall Henderson" <randallh(at)home.com>
Subject: Room at OSH taken
Date: Jul 23, 2000
Looks like the room I posted at OSH (Sharon Hawkins') has been taken (Charlie, be sure to let me and/or the list know if anything changes.) I will in fact be going but not until Friday or Saturday, and I'll just camp. Look forward to seeing y'all! Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~100 hrs) Portland, OR http://www.edt.com/homewing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com>
"Matronics Engines-List"
Subject: UL engines... 2si, Rotax
Date: Aug 04, 2000
I am looking into an Aerolite 103 kit for some fun-flying while other projects are in progress... my question is related to quality/reliability of ultralight engines. The kit by default comes with a 2si F460 35HP engine... there is an option for a 40HP 2si as well as a Rotax 447. As I understand it, the Rotax seems to have a better reputation in the field for quality and reliability. Assuming that all of the maintenance is done per manufacturer's instructions, overhaul at the recommended time (both have a 500 hr TBO), etc., is there a real difference in relibility, enough to go for the greater weight and cost of the Rotax? Is the 2si BAD, or just not quite as good? Any opinions and first hand experience would be helpful and greatly appreciated! FWIW, I may be forced into the 2si for this project anyway, as weight will become an issue (if I still want to fly this bird part 103)... I just want to become informed on the pros and cons of both engines. Thanks in advance for any information you folks are able to provide. Steve steve(at)tzogon.com HAM Tech lic: N1YZJ http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/glass_cockpit http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/stolch801 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2000
From: "J. Davis" <jd(at)lri.sjhc.london.on.ca>
info(at)zenithair.com
Subject: static thrust questions
701/582/Ivo 3-blade, still trying to resolve a poor rate-of-climb... Two questions: 1- What should I be getting for static thrust, measured with an inline scale, in pounds. (an archive search indicates that C. H. says that 260 is absolute minimum for a 701) 2- What *exactly* should be the "thrust angle", i.e., the angle between the engine's crankshaft and the plane's horizontal reference line? This is unclear in the plans. Most, but not all, 701 engines, especially 582s, seem to point down several degrees from horizontal. Why is this. And why do some, esp. 912's seem to be horizontal? Regards, J. | J. Davis, M.Sc. (comp_sci) | email: jd(at)uwo.ca | | SysMgr, research programmer | voice: (519) 646 6100 x64166 | | Lawson Research Institute | fax: (519) 646 6135 | | London, Ontario | lriweb.sjhc.london.on.ca/~jd | He was a multi-millionaire... Wanna know how he made all of his money? ... He designed the little diagrams that tell which way to put batteries in... --- Steven Wright ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2000
From: claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: static thrust questions
"J. Davis" a crit : > 701/582/Ivo 3-blade, still trying to resolve a poor rate-of-climb... > Two questions: > 1- What should I be getting for static thrust, measured with an > inline scale, in pounds. (an archive search indicates that C. H. > says that 260 is absolute minimum for a 701) Hi J. I never could take off my 701-912 alone aboard with a Ivo 3-blade at any pitch angle from 12 to 18 deg (only the nose wheel took off...). I tried also a narrow chord Arplast : same result. Then a large chord Arplast : at the best pitch (17 deg) it was not better than a GSC, but delaminated after few take-offs due to my dirt-strip. The GSC id perfect for the 701. Static thrust is not the good way to tune the prop : use the static RPM instead. Rule of thumb : static RPM = 90% of the red line. > 2- What *exactly* should be the "thrust angle", i.e., the angle > between the engine's crankshaft and the plane's horizontal reference > line? This is unclear in the plans. Should be exactly 0 deg. Reference : the upper fuselage longeron just behind the cabine. It is clearly written in the construction manual. > Most, but not all, 701 engines, especially 582s, seem to point down > several degrees from horizontal. > Why is this. And why do some, esp. 912's seem to be horizontal? Because there is a bug : On the sketch 7F15, the angle between the firewall and the floor is ~80deg (Heintz loves the "~" ). I made a 80.0deg angle. Guess what: my 912 thrust line was at 4.1deg from the horizontal ref. Free advice : clamp the engine mount and check with the ref before riveting or bolting anything. A 4.1 deg pitching down prop thrust line means : flying level at full load, you don't see the horizon. I don't know for the 582' but the problem should be the same, and you will have to insert washers (or to re-drill new brackets like I did). Anyway, if the thrust line has a big effect on the flying level, it has almost no effect on the climb rate of a 701, which climbs decently only when built VERY light due to the small wing area (all 701 built in France have 1.20m more span and climb MUCH better). Regards. Claude PS : You will have more info in the archives of zenith-list(at)matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________ User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
Date: Aug 10, 2000
Subject: GAP Diesel
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)telus.net>
I was looking at a photo of the GAP diesel yesterday when something struck me that I hadn't noticed before. The intake ports are at the bottom of the cylinders, and the exhaust ports are at the top. How does this work? The engine is described as a two-stroke diesel. But a typical two-stroke has the intake and exhaust ports at the bottom of the cylinder, on opposite sides. Does the GAP engine have poppet valves only for the exhaust? Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC tedd(at)telus.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tremsc(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 10, 2000


September 12, 1999 - August 10, 2000

Engines-Archive.digest.vol-aa