Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:31 AM - 1998 Geo 1.3L engine (Ron &Phyliss)
2. 05:37 AM - Vacuum supply for backup gyros (Gary Casey)
3. 06:31 AM - Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros (Ken)
4. 07:32 AM - Re: 1998 Geo 1.3L engine (Archie)
5. 07:40 AM - Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros (Archie)
6. 07:48 AM - Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros (n801bh@netzero.com)
7. 08:20 AM - Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros (Ken)
8. 08:24 AM - Re: 1998 Geo 1.3L engine (Philippjw54@aol.com)
9. 08:29 AM - Re: Re: Engines-List Digest: RE 1.3 GEO (Lowell Fitt)
10. 08:51 AM - Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
11. 09:05 AM - Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros (Archie)
12. 11:10 AM - Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros (n801bh@netzero.com)
13. 11:37 AM - Electronic Ign (Charles Heathco)
14. 01:48 PM - Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros (Archie)
15. 01:56 PM - Re: Electronic Ign (Archie)
16. 04:23 PM - Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros (Ed Anderson)
17. 05:28 PM - Re: Engines-List Digest: RE 1.3 GEO (Garrou, Douglas)
18. 06:44 PM - Auto conversions (Ed Anderson)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 1998 Geo 1.3L engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ron &Phyliss" <rgdplg@radiowire.net>
Ron Dallmeyer
rgdplg@radiowire.net
Phil, I'm sure your comments were meant to be "Tongue and Cheek". You sure riled
the troops. The thing we must all remember is what this is all about; the
EAA..
The CH-701, if you aren't familiar, is a two place STOL aircraft made of all aluminum,
albeit pretty thin. My wife and I are both pilots and we know our limitations
and how we want to get our kicks. If no one ever took chances, we would
still be driving a horse and buggy, much less Geo Metro.
Give this guy a break, he's just having some fun.
Do Not Archive
Ron & Phyliss
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Vacuum supply for backup gyros |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<I was thinking on using the velocity of my exhaust gases in my collectors
to create a vacuum source.>>
The easiest and probably most effective way to use exhaust pulsations is to
add ports into the exhaust stacks as close to the engine as possible and put
check valves there. There is always a vacuum after the initial blow-down
pulse and that can be used to create a vacuum source. We used to call that
"pulseair" in the car biz and I believe it was Toyota that built a 4-up reed
valve assembly that worked well for 4-cylinder inline engines. The problem
was always durability of the valves as they take quite a beating and run hot
by virtue of being so close to the exhaust system. I'm not sure if the
vacuum levels would be high enough and there would be very little vacuum
available at idle, potentially preventing testing of the system on the
ground. It is a good idea, though.
<<How about the old tested method using an outside venturi?>>
I like this idea too, and I once designed a "modern" configuration that had
a heated inlet lip to prevent icing and was highly streamlined for minimum
drag. This is an external component to build and will add a certain amount
of drag. The vacuum is not available on the ground so one has to have faith
that the backup gyros will spin up shortly after takeoff. Unfortunately
some electrical failures happen then as well. One could design the venturi
into existing drag-producing shapes, such as gear leg fairings, etc. The
good thing about it is that it doesn't rely on the engine in any way. It
does require a pressure regulator if accurate gyro indications are expected
at all airspeeds.
Gary Casey
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
I have talked to at least two guys that tried this over the years. Both
had to replace the instruments due to moisture somehow migrating back to
them. Both abandoned the idea. Achieving sufficient vacuum at cruise
power didn't seem to be a problem. Can't remember whether they got
enough before takeoff.
Ken
Gary Casey wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
>
><<I was thinking on using the velocity of my exhaust gases in my collectors
>to create a vacuum source.>>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 1998 Geo 1.3L engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
Ditto here.
Anyone attending my seminars at OSH knows I praise the innovative spirit
of most EAA'ers. In conclusion, I usually add:
"If automotive piston engine technology application progressed at the same
rate
as aviation, we would still be driving model "A"s."
================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron &Phyliss" <rgdplg@radiowire.net>
Subject: Engines-List: 1998 Geo 1.3L engine
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ron &Phyliss" <rgdplg@radiowire.net>
>
> Ron Dallmeyer
>
> rgdplg@radiowire.net
>
> Phil, I'm sure your comments were meant to be "Tongue and Cheek". You
> sure riled the troops. The thing we must all remember is what this is all
> about; the EAA..
> The CH-701, if you aren't familiar, is a two place STOL aircraft made of
> all aluminum, albeit pretty thin. My wife and I are both pilots and we
> know our limitations and how we want to get our kicks. If no one ever
> took chances, we would still be driving a horse and buggy, much less Geo
> Metro.
> Give this guy a break, he's just having some fun.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> Ron & Phyliss
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
Moisture should not be a problem, as we use a check valve in the racing
engines
to generate vacuum in the crankcase, as opposed to a free air breather.
At OSH, I noticed one of the grand champions with oil on the belly, and
offered him a
solution. Sent him a copy of my diagram, and the following year acknowledged
that it works.
Works best with a "collector" exhaust. (four into one, six into one)
Archie
=================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman@albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Vacuum supply for backup gyros
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> I have talked to at least two guys that tried this over the years. Both
> had to replace the instruments due to moisture somehow migrating back to
> them. Both abandoned the idea. Achieving sufficient vacuum at cruise
> power didn't seem to be a problem. Can't remember whether they got
> enough before takeoff.
> Ken
>
> Gary Casey wrote:
>
>>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
>>
>><<I was thinking on using the velocity of my exhaust gases in my
>>collectors
>>to create a vacuum source.>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>
Moisture should not be a problem, as we use a check valve in the racing
engines
to generate vacuum in the crankcase, as opposed to a free air breather.
At OSH, I noticed one of the grand champions with oil on the belly, and
offered him a
solution. Sent him a copy of my diagram, and the following year acknowledged
that it works.
Works best with a "collector" exhaust. (four into one, six into one)
Archie
That should work in my plane then cause it a race engine for sure, albiet a severly
detuned one...
Ben Haas N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
do not archive
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Yes both guys said that as well but somehow moisture still destroyed
their instruments.
We wondered if pulses or waves were too fast for the check valves. I
would not have expected moisture to go up tubing which has air flowing
down to the headers in it. But apparently enough did. I'm not concluding
that it can't be made to work but caution seems to be in order.
Ken
Archie wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
>
>Moisture should not be a problem, as we use a check valve in the racing
>engines
>to generate vacuum in the crankcase, as opposed to a free air breather.
>At OSH, I noticed one of the grand champions with oil on the belly, and
>offered him a
>solution. Sent him a copy of my diagram, and the following year acknowledged
>that it works.
>Works best with a "collector" exhaust. (four into one, six into one)
>Archie
>=================================================
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ken" <klehman@albedo.net>
>To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Engines-List: Vacuum supply for backup gyros
>
>
>
>
>>--> Engines-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>>
>>I have talked to at least two guys that tried this over the years. Both
>>had to replace the instruments due to moisture somehow migrating back to
>>them. Both abandoned the idea. Achieving sufficient vacuum at cruise
>>power didn't seem to be a problem. Can't remember whether they got
>>enough before takeoff.
>>Ken
>>
>>Gary Casey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
>>>
>>><<I was thinking on using the velocity of my exhaust gases in my
>>>collectors
>>>to create a vacuum source.>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 1998 Geo 1.3L engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Philippjw54@aol.com
BOO
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: RE 1.3 GEO |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: <Philippjw54@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: RE 1.3 GEO
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Philippjw54@aol.com
At least the aircraft > mechanic has gone through training whether it be
through the military or > through civilian training.
My career has been for the most part in health care with some time in
commercial aviation. One thing I learned is that education, and or a
license, will certify neither competency or ethics. The strength of an
argument, in my opinion, has more to do with factual information, pertinent
to the issues at hand. A broad brush comment based on thinly veiled
prejudice only serves to deminish the credibility of the speaker despite the
seemingly impressive letters behind his name.
"Just give me the facts Mam". I like opinions, they are food for thought.
I have little use for opinions strongly stated as facts.
Chip
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 03/12/2005 9:14:20 AM Central Standard Time,
n801bh@netzero.com writes:
Any interest? Comments?
Sounds like you have done you homework and built a better mousetrap. Nice
going...
>>>
Sounds like a neat idea- But how about a turbocharging/turbonormalizing kit
for RVs? Now THERE's a market! Then you'd have a whole bunch of folks to sell
your gyro backup system to!
Mark- do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
Believe you may have answered your own comment.
What is the criteria for determining the moisture came from the exhaust?
That is merely the vacuum exit.
The vacuum is not absolute.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman@albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Vacuum supply for backup gyros
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> Yes both guys said that as well but somehow moisture still destroyed
> their instruments.
> We wondered if pulses or waves were too fast for the check valves. I
> would not have expected moisture to go up tubing which has air flowing
> down to the headers in it. But apparently enough did. I'm not concluding
> that it can't be made to work but caution seems to be in order.
> Ken
>
> Archie wrote:
>
>>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
>>
>>Moisture should not be a problem, as we use a check valve in the racing
>>engines
>>to generate vacuum in the crankcase, as opposed to a free air breather.
>>At OSH, I noticed one of the grand champions with oil on the belly, and
>>offered him a
>>solution. Sent him a copy of my diagram, and the following year
>>acknowledged
>>that it works.
>>Works best with a "collector" exhaust. (four into one, six into one)
>>Archie
>>=================================================
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Ken" <klehman@albedo.net>
>>To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Re: Engines-List: Vacuum supply for backup gyros
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> Engines-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>>>
>>>I have talked to at least two guys that tried this over the years. Both
>>>had to replace the instruments due to moisture somehow migrating back to
>>>them. Both abandoned the idea. Achieving sufficient vacuum at cruise
>>>power didn't seem to be a problem. Can't remember whether they got
>>>enough before takeoff.
>>>Ken
>>>
>>>Gary Casey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
>>>>
>>>><<I was thinking on using the velocity of my exhaust gases in my
>>>>collectors
>>>>to create a vacuum source.>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>
> One possible senerio might be that after you shut down the motor the heat
that's involved with this evacuation set up warms up the check valves and
because the instruments are above the exhaust system, convection carries a
small amount of moisture up into gauges and then it condenses. All the check
valves I have used on 100's of race engines I built were mounted on the
collectors and subject to severe heat cycles, and probably didn't seal up real
tight. My thoughts are to weld in the venturi tubes that create the initial
suction { these are the tubes that are positioned in the collectors at an angle
to cause the low pressure}, run a hose between the two collectors venturi's, put
the check valve there, which will be a cooler enviornment for it, then another
hose to a small accumulator tank, another hose to the suction regulator and then
on to the gauges. This way any residual heat will probably be trapped in the
lines and tank.
>
> Anyone wanna chime in on this???
>
> Ben Haas
> www.haaspowerair.com
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
Im a newby here on this list. I would like o know who is running Electronic ign,
and which brand. (I have eliminated LASAR as a contender) Charlie heathco
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
Not a bad idea for aircraft, certainly worth a try.
Should not take much to set up next time I run a smaller engine on the dyno.
Nothing scheduled at the moment, but will post all parameter info when done.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: <n801bh@netzero.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Vacuum supply for backup gyros
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "n801bh@netzero.com"
> <n801bh@netzero.com>
>
>
>> One possible senerio might be that after you shut down the motor the heat
> that's involved with this evacuation set up warms up the check valves and
> because the instruments are above the exhaust system, convection carries
> a
> small amount of moisture up into gauges and then it condenses. All the
> check
> valves I have used on 100's of race engines I built were mounted on the
> collectors and subject to severe heat cycles, and probably didn't seal up
> real
> tight. My thoughts are to weld in the venturi tubes that create the
> initial
> suction { these are the tubes that are positioned in the collectors at an
> angle
> to cause the low pressure}, run a hose between the two collectors
> venturi's, put
> the check valve there, which will be a cooler enviornment for it, then
> another
> hose to a small accumulator tank, another hose to the suction regulator
> and then
> on to the gauges. This way any residual heat will probably be trapped in
> the
> lines and tank.
>>
>> Anyone wanna chime in on this???
>>
>> Ben Haas
>> www.haaspowerair.com
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ign |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
If you are experimental, you have more choices.
My only experience was incorporating a full dual electronic MSD system in an
O-200.
Was quite a bit of work, but when done, would usually fire in one
revolution, and with
a plug gap of .080. (using automotive plugs). Crank trigger wheel had to be
fabricated
to fit behind spinner. Might do it a bit differently today.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
Subject: Engines-List: Electronic Ign
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco"
> <cheathco@comcast.net>
>
> Im a newby here on this list. I would like o know who is running
> Electronic ign, and which brand. (I have eliminated LASAR as a contender)
> Charlie heathco
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum supply for backup gyros |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Hi Gary,
While I do not fly with a turbocharger (yet), I do find your idea certainly
sounds logical to me. However, I presume this technique would only work
while you are flying with boost? In other words, I can see it working when
the turbo is producing boost to normalize the manifold pressure, but my
question is what happens when you got out of boost such as throttling back
for descent??
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
Subject: Engines-List: Vacuum supply for backup gyros
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
>
> I'm thinking that at least some turbocharged engine users would like to
use
> non-electric (vacuum) gyros as a backup for their fancy glass panels. I
> have a design (patented, in fact) that allows a turbocharged engine to
> supply the required differential pressure to vacuum instruments under all
> operating conditions without the necessity of a vacuum pump. This could
> also be used to supply the primary flight instruments, but perhaps some
> people would be reluctant to go that far. For a backup source it would be
> ideal as it is lighter than a vacuum pump and has no wear parts. I
> personally like the idea of using vacuum gyros as a backup as they have no
> electrical requirement at all - potentially eliminating the need for a
> redundant electrical system in a glass-panel plane. The device is
basically
> a pressure regulator that automatically selects pressure from 3 or 4
sources
> and picks the appropriate pair of sources to produce the required
> differential pressure. It picks from the intake manifold, compressor
> discharge, atmospheric and cabin pressure(in the case of a pressurized
> aircraft). It starts from the lowest and picks whichever supply is
> necessary to get the appropriate pressure.
>
> Any interest? Comments?
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: RE 1.3 GEO |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas" <dgarrou@hunton.com>
One quick thought on the auto/aircraft engine debate: insurance. Often there is
a difference in the insurability of homebuilts with auto conversions vs. homebuilts
with lycosauruses. Insurers usually like the lycosauruses better. I
don't think that's because the insurers are irrationally prejudiced. I believe
the reason (and I'm ready to be proven wrong) is loss history, plain and simple.
This is a meaningful piece of evidence. It means, for example, that all else being
equal I'm less likely to hop into a new homebuilt with a Subaru than a new
homebuilt with a Lyco. In making that admittedly subjective and personalized
decision about risk, I feel that I have to consider the evidence that's available.
It does not mean, however, that an auto conversion cannot be a safe, or even superior,
aircraft powerplant. In any individual case a conversion might be an
excellent powerplant. For example, I am familiar with Ben's work and wouldn't
hesitate to fly behind his engine.
The loss history just means, I think, that -- **on average** -- the auto conversions
that are actually flying out there are not flying (or have not yet been
flying) as safely as the lycosauruses. Much of this may have nothing whatsoever
to do with the inherent differences in manufacturing or technology between
a Geo and a Lycosaurus, which is what seems to get debated the most. It might
be primarily related to the use of nonstandard fuel systems or engine cooling
or test-flight procedures or goodness knows what.
Having exercised great restraint :) I will roll this grenade into the tent: proponents
of auto conversions who criticize the quality defects and ADs associated
with Lycomings make a valid point. But the unknown is this: how many ADs
and emergency FAA actions would there be *with respect to flying auto conversions*
if those conversions were subject to the same regulatory regime as certified
engines? My hunch - and obviously it will remain that until the FAA starts
regulating auto conversions the same way they do Lycos -- is that a number
of auto conversions out there would have been grounded numerous times by now.
In other words, I think at least *some* portion of that poor loss history associated
with auto conversions may have to do with manufacturing defects, etc. But
we just don't have the data.
Doug Garrou
Project 801
www.garrou.com
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Auto conversions |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Some very good points, Doug
I fly behind a rotary powered RV-6A with 270+ hours, myself. There is no
question in my mind that the auxiliary systems (fuel, cooling, lubrication,
etc) are the most likely place for an auto conversion to go wrong. Why?
simply because most auxiliary systems are designed and put together by
individuals - some who may know and follow and some who may not know or
follow good design practices. The engine in contrast has been put designed
and put together by a manufacturing firm with all the necessary resources at
its disposal. An auto conversion is not a simply task and certainly not
without risks. I tell people is like a miniature R&D project which like all
R&D projects I have know - will take longer and cost more than you planned.
I whole heartedly agree that your degree of comfort (or discomfort) is
directly related to your risk assessment which in turn is directly linked to
your knowledge and understanding (or lack of) the details of an
installation. I have seen Lycoming installations that have made me shudder
(as well as auto installations that made me shudder).
I have been insured since day one and I think one reason is I have provided
the agent with documentation of my design, testing done and probably more
significant - the number of safe flying hours behind the rotary. There is no
question that there would be "ADs" on auto conversions - we established a
"Best Practices" website where we post what has proven to work - or proven
to not work, gottachs, etc. in order that others may minimize their risk and
aid in their decisions.
Auto conversion are certainly not everybody's cup of tea. Doing it to avoid
the price of a Lycoming is generally a poor motivation. I can usually tell
in a five minute conversion whether a person is a good candidate to tackle
such an undertaking. I first ask "Do you prefer to fly or to tinker?" If
the answer is "FLY" then I suggest their best choice would be a
Lycoming/Continental/Franklin etc. But, if you do love the challenge and
like to tinker as much as fly then it might just might be your cup of tea.
We are slowly building a vendor base so that the acceptable designs and
approaches are getting incorporated into products again reducing the risk in
the area that I personally think it the highest - the auxiliary systems. If
those are well designed and proven then I think the risk is considerably
reduced. I have had people "Copy" a design for a subsystem which turned
out not to work for them - the reason is they did NOT copy the design - but
made changes (improvements?) for one reason or another which simply made it
a different - unproven- system.
But, just like many years ago when most of the GA crowd thought anyone who
would fly in a aircraft they had built were crazy, we have a similar
situation. Those same "Crazies" now flying the best designed light aircraft
in history (experimental/homebuilts) are now looking upon those who want
to put auto engines in aircraft as "Crazies" - all relative, I guess {:>)
Best Regards
Ed
Ed Anderson
N494BW RV-6A Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Garrou, Douglas" <dgarrou@hunton.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: RE 1.3 GEO
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas" <dgarrou@hunton.com>
>
> One quick thought on the auto/aircraft engine debate: insurance. Often
there is a difference in the insurability of homebuilts with auto
conversions vs. homebuilts with lycosauruses. Insurers usually like the
lycosauruses better. I don't think that's because the insurers are
irrationally prejudiced. I believe the reason (and I'm ready to be proven
wrong) is loss history, plain and simple.
>
> This is a meaningful piece of evidence. It means, for example, that all
else being equal I'm less likely to hop into a new homebuilt with a Subaru
than a new homebuilt with a Lyco. In making that admittedly subjective and
personalized decision about risk, I feel that I have to consider the
evidence that's available.
>
> It does not mean, however, that an auto conversion cannot be a safe, or
even superior, aircraft powerplant. In any individual case a conversion
might be an excellent powerplant. For example, I am familiar with Ben's
work and wouldn't hesitate to fly behind his engine.
>
> The loss history just means, I think, that -- **on average** -- the auto
conversions that are actually flying out there are not flying (or have not
yet been flying) as safely as the lycosauruses. Much of this may have
nothing whatsoever to do with the inherent differences in manufacturing or
technology between a Geo and a Lycosaurus, which is what seems to get
debated the most. It might be primarily related to the use of nonstandard
fuel systems or engine cooling or test-flight procedures or goodness knows
what.
>
> Having exercised great restraint :) I will roll this grenade into the
tent: proponents of auto conversions who criticize the quality defects and
ADs associated with Lycomings make a valid point. But the unknown is this:
how many ADs and emergency FAA actions would there be *with respect to
flying auto conversions* if those conversions were subject to the same
regulatory regime as certified engines? My hunch - and obviously it will
remain that until the FAA starts regulating auto conversions the same way
they do Lycos -- is that a number of auto conversions out there would have
been grounded numerous times by now.
>
> In other words, I think at least *some* portion of that poor loss history
associated with auto conversions may have to do with manufacturing defects,
etc. But we just don't have the data.
>
> Doug Garrou
> Project 801
> www.garrou.com
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|