Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:46 AM - Corvair Engine (Charles Campbell)
2. 04:23 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (helspersew@aol.com)
3. 05:25 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Jack Phillips)
4. 05:26 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Gary Boothe)
5. 06:05 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Kip and Beth Gardner)
6. 06:09 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Jack Phillips)
7. 06:20 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (TOM STINEMETZE)
8. 06:43 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Kip and Beth Gardner)
9. 07:00 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Kip and Beth Gardner)
10. 07:06 AM - Corvair List (Charles Campbell)
11. 07:26 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Charles Campbell)
12. 07:26 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (kevinpurtee)
13. 07:30 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Charles Campbell)
14. 07:31 AM - Re: Corvair List (Ryan Mueller)
15. 07:45 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (gboothe5@comcast.net)
16. 07:46 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Ryan Mueller)
17. 08:05 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Kip and Beth Gardner)
18. 08:05 AM - Re: runway length? (TriScout)
19. 08:14 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Kip and Beth Gardner)
20. 08:25 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (gboothe5@comcast.net)
21. 08:32 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Ryan Mueller)
22. 08:37 AM - Thanks for the encouragement (dnboyd1@comcast.net)
23. 08:56 AM - Re: Re: Corvair Engine (Charles Campbell)
24. 09:01 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (AmsafetyC@aol.com)
25. 09:01 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (AmsafetyC@aol.com)
26. 09:02 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Charles Campbell)
27. 09:14 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (dgaldrich)
28. 09:34 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (John Hofmann)
29. 09:47 AM - Re: Thanks for the encouragement (Charles Campbell)
30. 10:01 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Bill Church)
31. 10:31 AM - Re: Re: Corvair Engine (Jack)
32. 10:33 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (Bill Church)
33. 11:22 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (kevinpurtee)
34. 11:22 AM - Re: Corvair Engine (kevinpurtee)
35. 11:35 AM - Re: Re: Corvair Engine (Jeff Boatright)
36. 11:50 AM - Re: Re: Corvair Engine (Ryan Mueller)
37. 12:17 PM - Re: Sky Scout pix (899PM)
38. 12:37 PM - Re: Re: Corvair Engine (Rick Holland)
39. 12:37 PM - Re: Re: Sky Scout pix (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP])
40. 12:37 PM - Re: Re: Sky Scout pix (Ryan Mueller)
41. 01:02 PM - Re: Re: Sky Scout pix (Wayne Bressler)
42. 01:16 PM - Re: Re: Corvair Engine (Charles Campbell)
43. 01:25 PM - Re: Corvair Engine (kevinpurtee)
44. 01:51 PM - Re: Re: Corvair Engine (Jeff Boatright)
45. 01:56 PM - Re: Corvair Engine (KM Heide CPO/FAAOP)
46. 02:07 PM - Re: Corvair Engine (Rick Holland)
47. 02:20 PM - Re: Re: Corvair Engine (Ryan Mueller)
48. 02:23 PM - Re: Re: Sky Scout pix (Ray Krause)
49. 03:10 PM - Re: Sky Scout pix (Bill Church)
50. 03:34 PM - Re: Thanks for the encouragement (Dangerous Dave)
51. 04:52 PM - Re: Re: Progress Pics (Rick Holland)
52. 06:27 PM - Re: Re: Re: Corvair Engine (Jack)
53. 06:58 PM - Re: Re: Do new or rebuilt engines come painted? (Rick Holland)
54. 07:26 PM - Re: Re: Soon will be building (Dick N)
55. 07:40 PM - Re: Corvair Engine (Clif Dawson)
56. 07:57 PM - Re: Re: Sky Scout pix (Clif Dawson)
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 |
|
I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for real?
I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some REAL
fault with the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or just
done in jest? From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see anything
that would cause the bias unless it's just jealousy.
Chuck
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: | Re: Corvair Engine |
I think Chuck needs to watch the video that was procuced last Summer by Joh
n Hoffman. Anybody got the link?
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net>
Sent: Tue, Dec 21, 2010 5:46 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for real? I
plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some REAL fault wit
h the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or just done in jest?
From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see anything that would caus
e the bias unless it's just jealousy.
Chuck
-
-= -- Please Support Your Lists This Month --
-= (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
-
-= November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on
-= the Contribution link below to find out more about
-= this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided
-= by:
-
-= * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com
-= * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com
-= * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com
-
-= List Contribution Web Site:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-
-========================
-= - The Pietenpol-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
-
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
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 |
|
Here is the link, but it won't play on my computer anymore. I've had some
problems with my PC lately so maybe you can view this:
http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100026
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
helspersew@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
I think Chuck needs to watch the video that was procuced last Summer by John
Hoffman. Anybody got the link?
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net>
Sent: Tue, Dec 21, 2010 5:46 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for real? I
plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some REAL fault with
the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or just done in jest?
>From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see anything that would cause
the bias unless it's just jealousy.
Chuck
_blank>www.aeroelectric.com
/" target=_blank>www.buildersbooks.com
=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
p://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
Chuck,
PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW student,
and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are you also on the
Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols with Corvairs,
including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner Mason, Axel
Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch more that will become airborne
in a year or two. I think most comments are meant in jest, as in the
following, as requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John Hoffman):
http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
BTW.Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers. Wanna' start
another debate about the pros & cons of carving your own prop? How about
laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
Now look what you've done! You got me started...
Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the center
section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push rods..the list
goes on.
Point is: FAA calls it 'EXPERIMENTAL' for a very good reason. I say, "Go
ahead and experiment. It's your dream."
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for real? I
plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some REAL fault with
the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or just done in jest?
>From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see anything that would cause
the bias unless it's just jealousy.
Chuck
Confidentiality Notice: This email is intended for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
notified that any use, review, dissemination, copying or action taken based
on this message or its attachments, if any, is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
or delete all copies of the original message and any attachments. Thank you.
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: Corvair Engine |
On political comment boards, 'encouraging them' is known as 'feeding
the trolls' - it's like at the zoo - no feeding the animals! :)
To be fair, there have been some issues that have come up over the
years with regards to William Wynne's conversion, but he's been good
about addressing them (costs more $, but they are addressed). Most of
the issues arise from the fact that WW has modified the engine to put
out higher HP (he claims 100hp), changing the torque curve by using a
different cam.
The problems come from the fact that the lack of a support bearing at
the prop end has resulted in a few snapped crank failures in high
stress applications (mostly Corvairs installed in KR's). This is
fixed by the addition of a 5th bearing, of which there are a couple
after market choices that have been developed specifically for the
aircraft conversion. Roy's Garage in Michigan is one example.
Bernard, of course used a largely unmodified Corvair in his "Last
Original". You could do the same by doing a basic WW conversion but
leaving in the original cam, and setting up a pressure cowl for
cooling (thus allowing you to take out the blower fan) and probably
get 50-60hp without (or at least fewer) concerns about the crank
failing. After all, "The Last Original" has been flying continuously
for nearly 50 years now. For myself, I'm going the full WW
conversion route, with a 5th bearing from Roy's, because I think his
5th bearing design is the best and easiest to incorporate into the
engine.
Kip Gardner
On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Gary Boothe wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW
> student, and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are
> you also on the Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols
> with Corvairs, including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck,
> Gardiner Mason, Axel Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch
> more that will become airborne in a year or two. I think most
> comments are meant in jest, as in the following, as requested by Dan
> Helsper (thanks to John Hoffman):
>
> http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
>
> BTW=85Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers.
> Wanna=92 start another debate about the pros & cons of carving your
> own prop? How about laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
>
> Now look what you=92ve done! You got me started=85..
>
> Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the
> center section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push
> rods=85.the list goes on.
>
> Point is: FAA calls it =91EXPERIMENTAL=92 for a very good reason. I
say,
> =93Go ahead and experiment. It=92s your dream.=94
> Gary Boothe
> Cool, Ca.
> Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
> (23 ribs down=85)
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> >
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>
> I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for
> real? I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is
> some REAL fault with the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias
> real or just done in jest? =46rom watching William Wynne's videos I
> can't see anything that would cause the bias unless it's just
> jealousy.
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
> www.buildersbooks.com
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> Confidentiality Notice: This email is intended for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary
> or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
> you are notified that any use, review, dissemination, copying or
> action taken based on this message or its attachments, if any, is
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
> the sender by reply email and destroy or delete all copies of the
> original message and any attachments. Thank you.
>
>
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 |
|
Chuck,
Yes it is in jest, mostly. If I lived in the midwest, I would probably have
built my Piet with a Model A, because I really like the look and sound
(pockity, pockity) of that engine. However, for me reliability is key,
flying above the forests of North Carolina and the mountains of Virginia,
and I'm just not a fan of auto engine conversions for aircraft. The design
requirements are simply too different.
Car engines are not designed to operate anywhere near full power for more
than a few seconds at a time, whereas an aircraft engine must be capable of
full power continuously. That's why Corvairs require such little tricks as
painting the pushrod tubes white to try to keep the oil down to a manageable
temperature. Putting that engine in an airplane is asking it to do
something it was simply not designed to do. Now the Corvair guys are adding
a 5th main bearing (at significant expense, negating the supposed cost
advantage of using a car engine to begin with) to handle the loads that a
propeller puts on the crankshaft. There have been numerous cases of
crankshafts breaking in Corvairs in aircraft, although I don't know of any
in a Pietenpol, other than Shad Bell's.
Car engines (other than the Model A) also tend to get their power at higher
RPMs than are useful for driving propellers. Props really loose efficiency
when the tips start going supersonic (to say nothing of being VERY noisy -
ever hear a T-6 takeoff?) and with the size props used on planes of our size
that happens at about 2500 RPM. Power generated at speeds faster than that
is not very useful and there needs to be substantial torque in the 2000 -
2500 RPM range. That's why so many auto engine conversions require gearing
to reduce the propeller speed, which adds cost, weight and complexity, and
hurts reliablity.
As Gary says, these are EXPERIMENTAL airplanes, so you are free to do as you
wish. Just realize that in this as in most decisions made in building an
airplane, there are tradeoffs. Reliability is not something I choose to
trade away, if I can help it.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Boothe
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
Chuck,
PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW student,
and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are you also on the
Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols with Corvairs,
including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner Mason, Axel
Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch more that will become airborne
in a year or two. I think most comments are meant in jest, as in the
following, as requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John Hoffman):
http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
BTW.Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers. Wanna' start
another debate about the pros & cons of carving your own prop? How about
laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
Now look what you've done! You got me started...
Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the center
section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push rods..the list
goes on.
Point is: FAA calls it 'EXPERIMENTAL' for a very good reason. I say, "Go
ahead and experiment. It's your dream."
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for real? I
plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some REAL fault with
the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or just done in jest?
>From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see anything that would cause
the bias unless it's just jealousy.
Chuck
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: Corvair Engine |
>>> "Charles Campbell" <cncampbell@windstream.net> 12/21/2010 5:43 AM >>>
Is the bias real or just done in jest?
Oh it's jealousy Chuck, pure and simple. There's nothing like 100+ SMOOTH
Chevy horsepower lifting you effortlessly into "...the long delirious
burning blue..."
Speaking of which. Have you seen the FAA's attempt to suck all the fun
out of flying? See below.
Pilot Officer Gillespie Magee
No 412 squadron, RCAF
Killed 11 December 1941
High Flight, with FAA Supplement
Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth(1),
And danced(2) the skies on laughter silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed(3) and joined the tumbling mirth(4)
Of sun-split clouds(5) and done a hundred things(6)
You have not dreamed of - Wheeled and soared and swung(7)
High in the sunlit silence(8). Hov'ring there(9)
I've chased the shouting wind(10) along and flung(11)
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long delirious(12), burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights(13) with easy grace,
Where never lark, or even eagle(14) flew;
And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space(15),
Put out my hand(16), and touched the face of God.
FAA MEMO:
1. Pilots must insure that all surly bonds have been slipped entirely
before aircraft taxiing is attempted.
2. During periods of sky dancing, crew and passengers must keep seatbelts
fastened. Crew should wear shoulder belts as provided. Sky dancing must
only be performed in aircraft rated for that activity.
3. Sunward climbs must not exceed the maximum permitted aircraft
ceiling.
4. Passenger aircraft are prohibited from joining the tumbling mirth.
5. Pilots flying through sun-split clouds under VFR conditions must comply
with all applicable minimum clearances.
6. Do not perform certain hundred things in front of Federal Aviation
Administration inspectors.
7. Wheeling, soaring, and swinging will not be attempted except in
aircraft rated for such activities and within utility class weight limits
and by pilots trained in such maneuvers with appropriate log endorsements.
8. Be advised that sunlit silence will occur only when a major engine
malfunction has occurred.
9. "Hov'ring there" will constitute a highly reliable signal that a flight
emergency is imminent. "Hov'ring there" may be executed safely in rotor
wing or vertical lift aircraft.
10. Forecasts of shouting winds are available from the local FSS.
Encounters with unexpected shouting winds should be reported by PIREP.
11. Pilots flinging eager aircraft through footless halls of air are
reminded that they alone are responsible for maintaining separation from
other eagerly flinging aircraft.
12. Should any crewmember or passenger experience delirium while in the
burning blue, submit an irregularity report upon flight termination and
seek immediate attention from their aeromedical examiner or flight
surgeon.
13. Windswept heights will be topped by a minimum of 1,000 feet to
maintain VFR minimum separations.
14. Aircraft engine ingestion of, or impact with, larks or eagles should
be reported to the FAA and the appropriate aircraft maintenance
facility.
15. Aircraft operating in the high untresspassed sanctity of space must
remain in IFR flight regardless of meteorological conditions and visibility
. remember to set altimeter to 29.92 where untresspassed sanctity exceeds
FL180.
16. Pilots and passengers are reminded that opening doors or windows in
order to touch the face of God may result in loss of cabin pressure. When
assisting others or small children to touch the face of God, please secure
your oxygen mask first, then assist others.
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: Corvair Engine |
Of course, as Jack will attest, aircraft engines never fail. :). I
also recall Amy Laboda, back when she was writing for EAA, doing a
column about how the crank snapped on takeoff on her big, old reliable
Continental-powered Cessna, putting her & her 2 daughters into
Biscayne Bay. It's flying, sh** can happen no matter what your choice
of aircraft, engine, etc.
The other thing to consider is that even with the 5th bearing, if you
are good at doing your own work, a zero-time Corvair conversion will
cost you about 6K. For that amount, you might get an A-65 overhauled,
but how many guys on this list have A-65's, and have concerns about
flying on hot days, or carrying passengers who weigh more than about
180lbs., or worry about the length of their runways, etc. etc. ? Can
you get a C-85 or C-95 rebuilt to zero time for 6K? I'm not sure, but
that would be the appropriate comparison. (On a different, but
related note, Oscar, how IS the C-85 working out? Better, I hope).
This is the debate that will NEVER die :)
Kip Gardner
On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Jack Phillips wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> Yes it is in jest, mostly. If I lived in the midwest, I would
> probably have built my Piet with a Model A, because I really like
> the look and sound (pockity, pockity) of that engine. However, for
> me reliability is key, flying above the forests of North Carolina
> and the mountains of Virginia, and I=92m just not a fan of auto engine
> conversions for aircraft. The design requirements are simply too
> different.
>
> Car engines are not designed to operate anywhere near full power for
> more than a few seconds at a time, whereas an aircraft engine must
> be capable of full power continuously. That=92s why Corvairs require
> such little tricks as painting the pushrod tubes white to try to
> keep the oil down to a manageable temperature. Putting that engine
> in an airplane is asking it to do something it was simply not
> designed to do. Now the Corvair guys are adding a 5th main bearing
> (at significant expense, negating the supposed cost advantage of
> using a car engine to begin with) to handle the loads that a
> propeller puts on the crankshaft. There have been numerous cases of
> crankshafts breaking in Corvairs in aircraft, although I don=92t know
> of any in a Pietenpol, other than Shad Bell=92s.
>
> Car engines (other than the Model A) also tend to get their power at
> higher RPMs than are useful for driving propellers. Props really
> loose efficiency when the tips start going supersonic (to say
> nothing of being VERY noisy ' ever hear a T-6 takeoff?) and with the
> size props used on planes of our size that happens at about 2500
> RPM. Power generated at speeds faster than that is not very useful
> and there needs to be substantial torque in the 2000 ' 2500 RPM
> range. That=92s why so many auto engine conversions require gearing
> to reduce the propeller speed, which adds cost, weight and
> complexity, and hurts reliablity.
>
> As Gary says, these are EXPERIMENTAL airplanes, so you are free to
> do as you wish. Just realize that in this as in most decisions made
> in building an airplane, there are tradeoffs. Reliability is not
> something I choose to trade away, if I can help it.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94
> Raleigh, NC
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> ] On Behalf Of Gary Boothe
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:24 AM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>
> Chuck,
>
> PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW
> student, and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are
> you also on the Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols
> with Corvairs, including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck,
> Gardiner Mason, Axel Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch
> more that will become airborne in a year or two. I think most
> comments are meant in jest, as in the following, as requested by Dan
> Helsper (thanks to John Hoffman):
>
> http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
>
> BTW=85Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers.
> Wanna=92 start another debate about the pros & cons of carving your
> own prop? How about laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
>
> Now look what you=92ve done! You got me started=85..
>
> Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the
> center section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push
> rods=85.the list goes on.
>
> Point is: FAA calls it =91EXPERIMENTAL=92 for a very good reason. I
say,
> =93Go ahead and experiment. It=92s your dream.=94
> Gary Boothe
> Cool, Ca.
> Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
> (23 ribs down=85)
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> >
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>
> I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for
> real? I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is
> some REAL fault with the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias
> real or just done in jest? =46rom watching William Wynne's videos I
> can't see anything that would cause the bias unless it's just
> jealousy.
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
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: Corvair Engine |
In the last post, I meant C-90 (O-200) of course.
On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:35 AM, Kip and Beth Gardner wrote:
> Of course, as Jack will attest, aircraft engines never fail. :). I
> also recall Amy Laboda, back when she was writing for EAA, doing a
> column about how the crank snapped on takeoff on her big, old
> reliable Continental-powered Cessna, putting her & her 2 daughters
> into Biscayne Bay. It's flying, sh** can happen no matter what your
> choice of aircraft, engine, etc.
>
> The other thing to consider is that even with the 5th bearing, if
> you are good at doing your own work, a zero-time Corvair conversion
> will cost you about 6K. For that amount, you might get an A-65
> overhauled, but how many guys on this list have A-65's, and have
> concerns about flying on hot days, or carrying passengers who weigh
> more than about 180lbs., or worry about the length of their runways,
> etc. etc. ? Can you get a C-85 or C-95 rebuilt to zero time for
> 6K? I'm not sure, but that would be the appropriate comparison.
> (On a different, but related note, Oscar, how IS the C-85 working
> out? Better, I hope).
>
> This is the debate that will NEVER die :)
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Jack Phillips wrote:
>
>> Chuck,
>>
>> Yes it is in jest, mostly. If I lived in the midwest, I would
>> probably have built my Piet with a Model A, because I really like
>> the look and sound (pockity, pockity) of that engine. However, for
>> me reliability is key, flying above the forests of North Carolina
>> and the mountains of Virginia, and I=92m just not a fan of auto
>> engine conversions for aircraft. The design requirements are
>> simply too different.
>>
>> Car engines are not designed to operate anywhere near full power
>> for more than a few seconds at a time, whereas an aircraft engine
>> must be capable of full power continuously. That=92s why Corvairs
>> require such little tricks as painting the pushrod tubes white to
>> try to keep the oil down to a manageable temperature. Putting that
>> engine in an airplane is asking it to do something it was simply
>> not designed to do. Now the Corvair guys are adding a 5th main
>> bearing (at significant expense, negating the supposed cost
>> advantage of using a car engine to begin with) to handle the loads
>> that a propeller puts on the crankshaft. There have been numerous
>> cases of crankshafts breaking in Corvairs in aircraft, although I
>> don=92t know of any in a Pietenpol, other than Shad Bell=92s.
>>
>> Car engines (other than the Model A) also tend to get their power
>> at higher RPMs than are useful for driving propellers. Props
>> really loose efficiency when the tips start going supersonic (to
>> say nothing of being VERY noisy ' ever hear a T-6 takeoff?) and
>> with the size props used on planes of our size that happens at
>> about 2500 RPM. Power generated at speeds faster than that is not
>> very useful and there needs to be substantial torque in the 2000 '
>> 2500 RPM range. That=92s why so many auto engine conversions require
>> gearing to reduce the propeller speed, which adds cost, weight and
>> complexity, and hurts reliablity.
>>
>> As Gary says, these are EXPERIMENTAL airplanes, so you are free to
>> do as you wish. Just realize that in this as in most decisions
>> made in building an airplane, there are tradeoffs. Reliability is
>> not something I choose to trade away, if I can help it.
>>
>> Jack Phillips
>> NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94
>> Raleigh, NC
>>
>> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>> ] On Behalf Of Gary Boothe
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:24 AM
>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>>
>> Chuck,
>>
>> PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW
>> student, and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too.
>> Are you also on the Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying
>> Pietenpols with Corvairs, including the Bell boys, all the Big
>> Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner Mason, Axel Purtee just to name a few.
>> There are a bunch more that will become airborne in a year or two.
>> I think most comments are meant in jest, as in the following, as
>> requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John Hoffman):
>>
>> http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
>>
>> BTW=85Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers.
>> Wanna=92 start another debate about the pros & cons of carving your
>> own prop? How about laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
>>
>> Now look what you=92ve done! You got me started=85..
>>
>> Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the
>> center section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push
>> rods=85.the list goes on.
>>
>> Point is: FAA calls it =91EXPERIMENTAL=92 for a very good reason. I
>> say, =93Go ahead and experiment. It=92s your dream.=94
>> Gary Boothe
>> Cool, Ca.
>> Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
>> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
>> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
>> (23 ribs down=85)
>>
>> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>> >
>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>>
>> I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for
>> real? I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is
>> some REAL fault with the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias
>> real or just done in jest? =46rom watching William Wynne's videos I
>> can't see anything that would cause the bias unless it's just
>> jealousy.
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
>> ">www.aeroelectric.com
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" style="color: blue; text-
>> decoration: underline; ">www.buildersbooks.com
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List"
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
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 |
|
Although I'm having trouble keeping up with the Piet list I would like
to get on the Corvair list, also. How do I do it?
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: Corvair Engine |
Gary, forget my question about how to join the Corvair list -- I just
did! Chuck----- Original Message -----
From: Kip and Beth Gardner
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
Of course, as Jack will attest, aircraft engines never fail. :). I
also recall Amy Laboda, back when she was writing for EAA, doing a
column about how the crank snapped on takeoff on her big, old reliable
Continental-powered Cessna, putting her & her 2 daughters into Biscayne
Bay. It's flying, sh** can happen no matter what your choice of
aircraft, engine, etc.
The other thing to consider is that even with the 5th bearing, if you
are good at doing your own work, a zero-time Corvair conversion will
cost you about 6K. For that amount, you might get an A-65 overhauled,
but how many guys on this list have A-65's, and have concerns about
flying on hot days, or carrying passengers who weigh more than about
180lbs., or worry about the length of their runways, etc. etc. ? Can
you get a C-85 or C-95 rebuilt to zero time for 6K? I'm not sure, but
that would be the appropriate comparison. (On a different, but related
note, Oscar, how IS the C-85 working out? Better, I hope).
This is the debate that will NEVER die :)
Kip Gardner
On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Jack Phillips wrote:
Chuck,
Yes it is in jest, mostly. If I lived in the midwest, I would
probably have built my Piet with a Model A, because I really like the
look and sound (pockity, pockity) of that engine. However, for me
reliability is key, flying above the forests of North Carolina and the
mountains of Virginia, and I=92m just not a fan of auto engine
conversions for aircraft. The design requirements are simply too
different.
Car engines are not designed to operate anywhere near full power for
more than a few seconds at a time, whereas an aircraft engine must be
capable of full power continuously. That=92s why Corvairs require such
little tricks as painting the pushrod tubes white to try to keep the oil
down to a manageable temperature. Putting that engine in an airplane is
asking it to do something it was simply not designed to do. Now the
Corvair guys are adding a 5th main bearing (at significant expense,
negating the supposed cost advantage of using a car engine to begin
with) to handle the loads that a propeller puts on the crankshaft.
There have been numerous cases of crankshafts breaking in Corvairs in
aircraft, although I don=92t know of any in a Pietenpol, other than Shad
Bell=92s.
Car engines (other than the Model A) also tend to get their power at
higher RPMs than are useful for driving propellers. Props really loose
efficiency when the tips start going supersonic (to say nothing of being
VERY noisy ' ever hear a T-6 takeoff?) and with the size props used on
planes of our size that happens at about 2500 RPM. Power generated at
speeds faster than that is not very useful and there needs to be
substantial torque in the 2000 ' 2500 RPM range. That=92s why so many
auto engine conversions require gearing to reduce the propeller speed,
which adds cost, weight and complexity, and hurts reliablity.
As Gary says, these are EXPERIMENTAL airplanes, so you are free to
do as you wish. Just realize that in this as in most decisions made in
building an airplane, there are tradeoffs. Reliability is not something
I choose to trade away, if I can help it.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP =93Icarus Plummet=94
Raleigh, NC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary
Boothe
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:24 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
Chuck,
PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW
student, and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are you
also on the Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols with
Corvairs, including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner
Mason, Axel Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch more that will
become airborne in a year or two. I think most comments are meant in
jest, as in the following, as requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John
Hoffman):
http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
BTW=85Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers.
Wanna=92 start another debate about the pros & cons of carving your own
prop? How about laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
Now look what you=92ve done! You got me started=85..
Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the
center section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push
rods=85.the list goes on.
Point is: FAA calls it =91EXPERIMENTAL=92 for a very good reason. I
say, =93Go ahead and experiment. It=92s your dream.=94
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down=85)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for
real? I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some
REAL fault with the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or
just done in jest? From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see
anything that would cause the bias unless it's just jealousy.
Chuck
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" style="color: blue;
text-decoration: underline; ">www.buildersbooks.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">www.homebuilthelp.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List"
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
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: Corvair Engine |
Hi Chuck - I've got a rule of thumb: if it keeps me up at night I won't do it.
Example - the one thing that kept me up during construction was my landing gear
wheels and axles. I changed them from my flimsy, motorcycle-based design to
a much stouter setup. My corvair did not, and does not, keep me up at night.
That's no guarantee it won't quit, it just shows where I put the corvair in
the risk management equation.
A couple of things I do personally to mitigate the risks of flying with a non-aircraft
engine: I occasionally do landings with the engine turned off, I try to
make all landings with the engine at idle, and I fly over places where I can
land if the motor does quit. Probably a good idea to do those things in any
aircraft.
Jack's point about the mountains is a good one. My Austin/Brodhead/Oshkosh/Austin
trip last year was planned over very forgiving ground, for both engine out
scenarios and for recovering-the-plane-after-the-engine-out scenarios.
I would not steer you away from the corvair. Fat Bottomed Girl's been flying 14
months and I intend to fly the 176th uneventful hour on Thursday.
BTW: the words "Aviation Safety" are actually in my job title. I'm familiar with
managing risk.
For what it's worth, my friend.
Axel
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324022#324022
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Engine |
Kip, I was considering the full WW conversion except for the 5th
bearing. The engines without the 5th bearing operated OK for years.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kip and Beth Gardner
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
On political comment boards, 'encouraging them' is known as 'feeding
the trolls' - it's like at the zoo - no feeding the animals! :)
To be fair, there have been some issues that have come up over the
years with regards to William Wynne's conversion, but he's been good
about addressing them (costs more $, but they are addressed). Most of
the issues arise from the fact that WW has modified the engine to put
out higher HP (he claims 100hp), changing the torque curve by using a
different cam.
The problems come from the fact that the lack of a support bearing at
the prop end has resulted in a few snapped crank failures in high stress
applications (mostly Corvairs installed in KR's). This is fixed by the
addition of a 5th bearing, of which there are a couple after market
choices that have been developed specifically for the aircraft
conversion. Roy's Garage in Michigan is one example.
Bernard, of course used a largely unmodified Corvair in his "Last
Original". You could do the same by doing a basic WW conversion but
leaving in the original cam, and setting up a pressure cowl for cooling
(thus allowing you to take out the blower fan) and probably get 50-60hp
without (or at least fewer) concerns about the crank failing. After
all, "The Last Original" has been flying continuously for nearly 50
years now. For myself, I'm going the full WW conversion route, with a
5th bearing from Roy's, because I think his 5th bearing design is the
best and easiest to incorporate into the engine.
Kip Gardner
On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Gary Boothe wrote:
Chuck,
PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW
student, and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are you
also on the Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols with
Corvairs, including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner
Mason, Axel Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch more that will
become airborne in a year or two. I think most comments are meant in
jest, as in the following, as requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John
Hoffman):
http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
BTW=85Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers.
Wanna=92 start another debate about the pros & cons of carving your own
prop? How about laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
Now look what you=92ve done! You got me started=85..
Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the
center section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push
rods=85.the list goes on.
Point is: FAA calls it =91EXPERIMENTAL=92 for a very good reason. I
say, =93Go ahead and experiment. It=92s your dream.=94
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down=85)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for
real? I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some
REAL fault with the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or
just done in jest? From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see
anything that would cause the bias unless it's just jealousy.
Chuck
www.buildersbooks.comhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhtt
p://forums.matronics.comConfidentiality Notice: This email is intended
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential, proprietary or privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are notified that any use, review,
dissemination, copying or action taken based on this message or its
attachments, if any, is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy or
delete all copies of the original message and any attachments. Thank
you.
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" style="color: blue;
text-decoration: underline; ">www.buildersbooks.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">www.homebuilthelp.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List"
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
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: Corvair List |
http://mylist.net/listinfo/corvaircraft
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net
> wrote:
> Although I'm having trouble keeping up with the Piet list I would like to
> get on the Corvair list, also. How do I do it?
>
> *
>
>
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: Corvair Engine |
Q2hhcmxlcywgDQoNCk1lIHRvby4gRGVtYW5kcyBvbiBQaWV0IHByb3BzIGFyZSBmYXIgbGVzcyB0
aGFuIGZhc3RlciBwbGFuZXMuDQoNCkdhcnkNCkRvIG5vdCBhcmNoaXZlDQpTZW50IG9uIHRoZSBT
cHJpbnSuIE5vdyBOZXR3b3JrIGZyb20gbXkgQmxhY2tCZXJyea4NCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBN
ZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206ICJDaGFybGVzIENhbXBiZWxsIiA8Y25jYW1wYmVsbEB3aW5kc3Ry
ZWFtLm5ldD4NClNlbmRlcjogb3duZXItcGlldGVucG9sLWxpc3Qtc2VydmVyQG1hdHJvbmljcy5j
b20NCkRhdGU6IFR1ZSwgMjEgRGVjIDIwMTAgMTA6MjU6MzkgDQpUbzogPHBpZXRlbnBvbC1saXN0
QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20+DQpSZXBseS1UbzogcGlldGVucG9sLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbVN1
YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBQaWV0ZW5wb2wtTGlzdDogQ29ydmFpciBFbmdpbmUNCg0KVGhpcyBpcyBhIG11
bHRpLXBhcnQgbWVzc2FnZSBpbiBNSU1FIGZvcm1hdC4NCg0K
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: Corvair Engine |
If you are going to do the full boat WW conversion.....and probably looking
at in the ballpark of $6000 to $7000 for your conversion/overhaul.....why
not spend another grand for at least the Weseman BTA 5th bearing and not
have to worry about the crank at all? In the overall grand scheme (or cost)
of things, $1000 is not that much....
Ryan
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.ne
t
> wrote:
> Kip, I was considering the full WW conversion except for the 5th
> bearing. The engines without the 5th bearing operated OK for years.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:01 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>
> On political comment boards, 'encouraging them' is known as 'feeding the
> trolls' - it's like at the zoo - no feeding the animals! :)
>
> To be fair, there have been some issues that have come up over the years
> with regards to William Wynne's conversion, but he's been good about
> addressing them (costs more $, but they are addressed). Most of the issu
es
> arise from the fact that WW has modified the engine to put out higher HP
(he
> claims 100hp), changing the torque curve by using a different cam.
>
> The problems come from the fact that the lack of a support bearing at the
> prop end has resulted in a few snapped crank failures in high stress
> applications (mostly Corvairs installed in KR's). This is fixed by the
> addition of a 5th bearing, of which there are a couple after market choic
es
> that have been developed specifically for the aircraft conversion. Roy's
> Garage in Michigan is one example.
>
> Bernard, of course used a largely unmodified Corvair in his "Last
> Original". You could do the same by doing a basic WW conversion but leav
ing
> in the original cam, and setting up a pressure cowl for cooling (thus
> allowing you to take out the blower fan) and probably get 50-60hp without
> (or at least fewer) concerns about the crank failing. After all, "The La
st
> Original" has been flying continuously for nearly 50 years now. For
> myself, I'm going the full WW conversion route, with a 5th bearing from
> Roy's, because I think his 5th bearing design is the best and easiest to
> incorporate into the engine.
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Gary Boothe wrote:
>
> Chuck,
> PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW
> student, and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are you
> also on the Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols with
> Corvairs, including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner
> Mason, Axel Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch more that will
> become airborne in a year or two. I think most comments are meant in jest
,
> as in the following, as requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John Hoffman)
:
> http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
> BTW=85Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers. Wanna
=92
> start another debate about the pros & cons of carving your own prop? How
> about laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
> Now look what you=92ve done! You got me started=85..
> Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the center
> section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push rods=85.the lis
t
> goes on.
> Point is: FAA calls it =91EXPERIMENTAL=92 for a very good reason. I say,
=93Go
> ahead and experiment. It=92s your dream.=94
>
> Gary Boothe
> Cool, Ca.
> Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
> (23 ribs down=85)
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com <
> owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
> *To*: pietenpol-list@matronics.com <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent*: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
> *Subject*: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
> I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for real?
> I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some REAL fault
> with the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or just done in
> jest? From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see anything that wou
ld
> cause the bias unless it's just jealousy.
> Chuck
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *www.buildersbooks.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This email is intended for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary or
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> notified that any use, review, dissemination, copying or action taken bas
ed
> on this message or its attachments, if any, is prohibited. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and dest
roy
> or delete all copies of the original message and any attachments. Thank y
ou.
>
> *
>
> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.aeroelectric.com
>
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" style="color: blue; text-decorati
on: underline; ">www.buildersbooks.com
> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.homebuilthelp.com
> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.
com/contribution
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List" style="color
: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pi
etenpol-List
> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
============*
>
>
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: Corvair Engine |
I'm going with the 5th bearing mainly because I can afford to & I tend
to be a belt and suspenders kind of guy. I know it's probably not
necessary with the loads a Piet imposes. Plus, I don't mind a little
extra weight in the nose for W & B, rather than having to move the
wings back too far, so why not make it useful wt. instead of a 20 lb.
chunk of lead?
Kip G.
On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Ryan Mueller wrote:
> If you are going to do the full boat WW conversion.....and probably
> looking at in the ballpark of $6000 to $7000 for your conversion/
> overhaul.....why not spend another grand for at least the Weseman
> BTA 5th bearing and not have to worry about the crank at all? In the
> overall grand scheme (or cost) of things, $1000 is not that much....
>
> Ryan
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Charles Campbell
<cncampbell@windstream.net
> > wrote:
> Kip, I was considering the full WW conversion except for the 5th
> bearing. The engines without the 5th bearing operated OK for years.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kip and Beth Gardner
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>
> On political comment boards, 'encouraging them' is known as 'feeding
> the trolls' - it's like at the zoo - no feeding the animals! :)
>
> To be fair, there have been some issues that have come up over the
> years with regards to William Wynne's conversion, but he's been good
> about addressing them (costs more $, but they are addressed). Most
> of the issues arise from the fact that WW has modified the engine to
> put out higher HP (he claims 100hp), changing the torque curve by
> using a different cam.
>
> The problems come from the fact that the lack of a support bearing
> at the prop end has resulted in a few snapped crank failures in high
> stress applications (mostly Corvairs installed in KR's). This is
> fixed by the addition of a 5th bearing, of which there are a couple
> after market choices that have been developed specifically for the
> aircraft conversion. Roy's Garage in Michigan is one example.
>
> Bernard, of course used a largely unmodified Corvair in his "Last
> Original". You could do the same by doing a basic WW conversion but
> leaving in the original cam, and setting up a pressure cowl for
> cooling (thus allowing you to take out the blower fan) and probably
> get 50-60hp without (or at least fewer) concerns about the crank
> failing. After all, "The Last Original" has been flying
> continuously for nearly 50 years now. For myself, I'm going the
> full WW conversion route, with a 5th bearing from Roy's, because I
> think his 5th bearing design is the best and easiest to incorporate
> into the engine.
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Gary Boothe wrote:
>
>> Chuck,
>> PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW
>> student, and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too.
>> Are you also on the Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying
>> Pietenpols with Corvairs, including the Bell boys, all the Big
>> Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner Mason, Axel Purtee just to name a few.
>> There are a bunch more that will become airborne in a year or two.
>> I think most comments are meant in jest, as in the following, as
>> requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John Hoffman):
>> http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
>> BTW=85Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers.
>> Wanna=92 start another debate about the pros & cons of carving your
>> own prop? How about laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
>> Now look what you=92ve done! You got me started=85..
>> Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the
>> center section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push
>> rods=85.the list goes on.
>> Point is: FAA calls it =91EXPERIMENTAL=92 for a very good reason. I
>> say, =93Go ahead and experiment. It=92s your dream.=94
>> Gary Boothe
>> Cool, Ca.
>> Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
>> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
>> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
>> (23 ribs down=85)
>>
>> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>> >
>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>>
>> I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for
>> real? I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is
>> some REAL fault with the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias
>> real or just done in jest? =46rom watching William Wynne's videos I
>> can't see anything that would cause the bias unless it's just
>> jealousy.
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>> www.buildersbooks.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> Confidentiality Notice: This email is intended for the sole use of
>> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary
>> or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
>> you are notified that any use, review, dissemination, copying or
>> action taken based on this message or its attachments, if any, is
>> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
>> the sender by reply email and destroy or delete all copies of the
>> original message and any attachments. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
>> ">www.aeroelectric.com
>>
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" style="color: blue; text-
>> decoration: underline; ">www.buildersbooks.com
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List"
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/ch
ref=
>
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.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: | Re: runway length? |
Nice! Shouldn't be a factor.. Just put an I0-540 on the Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324028#324028
Message 19
| 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: Corvair Engine |
One last comment, and something else not mentioned by anyone. Namely,
it's easy to put electric start on the Corvair. Now I know this will
send all the purists into apoplectic fits, BUT as a Lefty, and
therefore by definition something of a Klutz, I don't relish the
thought of doing a jig in front of (or even to the side of) a large
moving piece of wood. Putting an electrical system of a C-85 or C-90
is a bit more costly, I've heard.
Kip
On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Ryan Mueller wrote:
> If you are going to do the full boat WW conversion.....and probably
> looking at in the ballpark of $6000 to $7000 for your conversion/
> overhaul.....why not spend another grand for at least the Weseman
> BTA 5th bearing and not have to worry about the crank at all? In the
> overall grand scheme (or cost) of things, $1000 is not that much....
>
> Ryan
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Charles Campbell
<cncampbell@windstream.net
> > wrote:
> Kip, I was considering the full WW conversion except for the 5th
> bearing. The engines without the 5th bearing operated OK for years.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kip and Beth Gardner
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>
> On political comment boards, 'encouraging them' is known as 'feeding
> the trolls' - it's like at the zoo - no feeding the animals! :)
>
> To be fair, there have been some issues that have come up over the
> years with regards to William Wynne's conversion, but he's been good
> about addressing them (costs more $, but they are addressed). Most
> of the issues arise from the fact that WW has modified the engine to
> put out higher HP (he claims 100hp), changing the torque curve by
> using a different cam.
>
> The problems come from the fact that the lack of a support bearing
> at the prop end has resulted in a few snapped crank failures in high
> stress applications (mostly Corvairs installed in KR's). This is
> fixed by the addition of a 5th bearing, of which there are a couple
> after market choices that have been developed specifically for the
> aircraft conversion. Roy's Garage in Michigan is one example.
>
> Bernard, of course used a largely unmodified Corvair in his "Last
> Original". You could do the same by doing a basic WW conversion but
> leaving in the original cam, and setting up a pressure cowl for
> cooling (thus allowing you to take out the blower fan) and probably
> get 50-60hp without (or at least fewer) concerns about the crank
> failing. After all, "The Last Original" has been flying
> continuously for nearly 50 years now. For myself, I'm going the
> full WW conversion route, with a 5th bearing from Roy's, because I
> think his 5th bearing design is the best and easiest to incorporate
> into the engine.
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Gary Boothe wrote:
>
>> Chuck,
>> PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW
>> student, and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too.
>> Are you also on the Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying
>> Pietenpols with Corvairs, including the Bell boys, all the Big
>> Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner Mason, Axel Purtee just to name a few.
>> There are a bunch more that will become airborne in a year or two.
>> I think most comments are meant in jest, as in the following, as
>> requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John Hoffman):
>> http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
>> BTW=85Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers.
>> Wanna=92 start another debate about the pros & cons of carving your
>> own prop? How about laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
>> Now look what you=92ve done! You got me started=85..
>> Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the
>> center section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push
>> rods=85.the list goes on.
>> Point is: FAA calls it =91EXPERIMENTAL=92 for a very good reason. I
>> say, =93Go ahead and experiment. It=92s your dream.=94
>> Gary Boothe
>> Cool, Ca.
>> Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
>> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
>> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
>> (23 ribs down=85)
>>
>> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>> >
>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>>
>> I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for
>> real? I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is
>> some REAL fault with the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias
>> real or just done in jest? =46rom watching William Wynne's videos I
>> can't see anything that would cause the bias unless it's just
>> jealousy.
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>> www.buildersbooks.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> Confidentiality Notice: This email is intended for the sole use of
>> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary
>> or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
>> you are notified that any use, review, dissemination, copying or
>> action taken based on this message or its attachments, if any, is
>> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
>> the sender by reply email and destroy or delete all copies of the
>> original message and any attachments. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
>> ">www.aeroelectric.com
>>
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" style="color: blue; text-
>> decoration: underline; ">www.buildersbooks.com
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List"
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/ch
ref=
>
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
>
>
Message 20
| 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: Corvair Engine |
S2lwLA0KDQpJIGhhdmUgYSAyMCBsYiBodW5rIG9mIGxlYWQgSSdsbCBzZWxsIHRvIHlvdSBmb3Ig
JDUwMCEgOy0pDQoNCkdhcnkNCkRvIG5vdCBhcmNoaXZlDQpTZW50IG9uIHRoZSBTcHJpbnSuIE5v
dyBOZXR3b3JrIGZyb20gbXkgQmxhY2tCZXJyea4NCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0t
LS0NCkZyb206IEtpcCBhbmQgQmV0aCBHYXJkbmVyIDxraXBhbmRiZXRoQGVhcnRobGluay5uZXQ+
DQpTZW5kZXI6IG93bmVyLXBpZXRlbnBvbC1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQpEYXRl
OiBUdWUsIDIxIERlYyAyMDEwIDEwOjU5OjI1IA0KVG86IDxwaWV0ZW5wb2wtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25p
Y3MuY29tPg0KUmVwbHktVG86IHBpZXRlbnBvbC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb21TdWJqZWN0OiBS
ZTogUGlldGVucG9sLUxpc3Q6IENvcnZhaXIgRW5naW5lDQoNCg0K
Message 21
| 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: Corvair Engine |
'lectric start is definitely a nice thing to have on a Corvair.....while yo
u
can hand prop the engine, it is far easier and safer to just get in and pus
h
the button. While I don't dispute the costs of adding a starter to a small
Continental that does not come with one, it is also nowhere near
the necessity on those engines that it is on the Corvair. Hand-propping a
small Continental is a relative non-event compared to hand-propping a
Corvair. (cough cough Yocum cough cough)
Ryan
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Kip and Beth Gardner <
kipandbeth@earthlink.net> wrote:
> One last comment, and something else not mentioned by anyone. Namely, it
's
> easy to put electric start on the Corvair. Now I know this will send all
> the purists into apoplectic fits, BUT as a Lefty, and therefore by
> definition something of a Klutz, I don't relish the thought of doing a ji
g
> in front of (or even to the side of) a large moving piece of wood. Putti
ng
> an electrical system of a C-85 or C-90 is a bit more costly, I've heard.
>
> Kip
>
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Ryan Mueller wrote:
>
> If you are going to do the full boat WW conversion.....and probably looki
ng
> at in the ballpark of $6000 to $7000 for your conversion/overhaul.....why
> not spend another grand for at least the Weseman BTA 5th bearing and not
> have to worry about the crank at all? In the overall grand scheme (or cos
t)
> of things, $1000 is not that much....
>
> Ryan
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Charles Campbell <
> cncampbell@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>> Kip, I was considering the full WW conversion except for the 5th
>> bearing. The engines without the 5th bearing operated OK for years.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
>> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:01 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>>
>> On political comment boards, 'encouraging them' is known as 'feeding the
>> trolls' - it's like at the zoo - no feeding the animals! :)
>>
>> To be fair, there have been some issues that have come up over the years
>> with regards to William Wynne's conversion, but he's been good about
>> addressing them (costs more $, but they are addressed). Most of the iss
ues
>> arise from the fact that WW has modified the engine to put out higher HP
(he
>> claims 100hp), changing the torque curve by using a different cam.
>>
>> The problems come from the fact that the lack of a support bearing at th
e
>> prop end has resulted in a few snapped crank failures in high stress
>> applications (mostly Corvairs installed in KR's). This is fixed by the
>> addition of a 5th bearing, of which there are a couple after market choi
ces
>> that have been developed specifically for the aircraft conversion. Roy'
s
>> Garage in Michigan is one example.
>>
>> Bernard, of course used a largely unmodified Corvair in his "Last
>> Original". You could do the same by doing a basic WW conversion but lea
ving
>> in the original cam, and setting up a pressure cowl for cooling (thus
>> allowing you to take out the blower fan) and probably get 50-60hp withou
t
>> (or at least fewer) concerns about the crank failing. After all, "The L
ast
>> Original" has been flying continuously for nearly 50 years now. For
>> myself, I'm going the full WW conversion route, with a 5th bearing from
>> Roy's, because I think his 5th bearing design is the best and easiest to
>> incorporate into the engine.
>>
>> Kip Gardner
>>
>> On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Gary Boothe wrote:
>>
>> Chuck,
>> PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW
>> student, and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are you
>> also on the Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols with
>> Corvairs, including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner
>> Mason, Axel Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch more that will
>> become airborne in a year or two. I think most comments are meant in jes
t,
>> as in the following, as requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John Hoffman
):
>> http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
>> BTW=85Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers. Wanna
=92
>> start another debate about the pros & cons of carving your own prop? How
>> about laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
>> Now look what you=92ve done! You got me started=85..
>> Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the cente
r
>> section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push rods=85.the li
st
>> goes on.
>> Point is: FAA calls it =91EXPERIMENTAL=92 for a very good reason. I say
, =93Go
>> ahead and experiment. It=92s your dream.=94
>>
>> Gary Boothe
>> Cool, Ca.
>> Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
>> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
>> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
>> (23 ribs down=85)
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From*: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com <
>> owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
>> *To*: pietenpol-list@matronics.com <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>> *Sent*: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
>> *Subject*: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>> I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for real?
>> I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some REAL faul
t
>> with the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or just done in
>> jest? From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see anything that wo
uld
>> cause the bias unless it's just jealousy.
>> Chuck
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *www.buildersbooks.com*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>> **
>>
>> Confidentiality Notice: This email is intended for the sole use of the
>> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary or
>> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>> notified that any use, review, dissemination, copying or action taken ba
sed
>> on this message or its attachments, if any, is prohibited. If you are no
t
>> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and des
troy
>> or delete all copies of the original message and any attachments. Thank
you.
>>
>> *
>>
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.aeroelectric.com
>>
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" style="color: blue; text-decorat
ion: underline; ">www.buildersbooks.com
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.homebuilthelp.co
m
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics
.com/contribution
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List" style="colo
r: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?P
ietenpol-List
>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>> *
>>
>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com*
>
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
============*
>
>
Message 22
| 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: | Thanks for the encouragement |
I like to extend 'Thanks' to the following guys who made helpful=C2-input
s about the Stewart Covering System.=C2-=C2- This is my first plane so
I have had a huge learning curve in all the areas of expertise.=C2- I've
ordered it and will keep you posted on how it works out.
Thanks to:=C2- Jeff Erekson,=C2- Rick Holland,=C2- Malcom Morrison,
=C2- Dangerous Dave,=C2- and Dan Helsper.
Merrry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Dave Boyd
Champaign, IL
Message 23
| 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: Corvair Engine |
Thank you, them's my sentiments exactly. I never worried much about engine
failure. Quite a bit of my flying has been over open water (ocean) and the
only time I heard strange sounds from the engine compartment was on my first
few night flights. After that everything was cool.
----- Original Message -----
From: "kevinpurtee" <kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:23 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair Engine
> <kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>
>
> Hi Chuck - I've got a rule of thumb: if it keeps me up at night I won't do
> it. Example - the one thing that kept me up during construction was my
> landing gear wheels and axles. I changed them from my flimsy,
> motorcycle-based design to a much stouter setup. My corvair did not, and
> does not, keep me up at night. That's no guarantee it won't quit, it just
> shows where I put the corvair in the risk management equation.
>
> A couple of things I do personally to mitigate the risks of flying with a
> non-aircraft engine: I occasionally do landings with the engine turned
> off, I try to make all landings with the engine at idle, and I fly over
> places where I can land if the motor does quit. Probably a good idea to
> do those things in any aircraft.
>
> Jack's point about the mountains is a good one. My
> Austin/Brodhead/Oshkosh/Austin trip last year was planned over very
> forgiving ground, for both engine out scenarios and for
> recovering-the-plane-after-the-engine-out scenarios.
>
> I would not steer you away from the corvair. Fat Bottomed Girl's been
> flying 14 months and I intend to fly the 176th uneventful hour on
> Thursday.
>
> BTW: the words "Aviation Safety" are actually in my job title. I'm
> familiar with managing risk.
>
> For what it's worth, my friend.
>
> Axel
>
> --------
> Kevin "Axel" Purtee
> NX899KP
> Austin/Georgetown, TX
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324022#324022
>
>
Message 24
| 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: Corvair Engine |
At all in for 8 k why not buy a used aircraft engine at around 800 to 1000
hours ? Following the advice of Tony B it makes good sense, unless you're in
for a bit more adventure than safe reliability.
Juss axin
John
Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
-----Original message-----
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 21, 2010 16:09:11 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
If you are going to do the full boat WW conversion.....and probably looking
at in the ballpark of $6000 to $7000 for your conversion/overhaul.....why
not spend another grand for at least the Weseman BTA 5th bearing and not
have to worry about the crank at all? In the overall grand scheme (or cost)
of things, $1000 is not that much....
Ryan
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net
> wrote:
> Kip, I was considering the full WW conversion except for the 5th
> bearing. The engines without the 5th bearing operated OK for years.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:01 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>
> On political comment boards, 'encouraging them' is known as 'feeding the
> trolls' - it's like at the zoo - no feeding the animals! :)
>
> To be fair, there have been some issues that have come up over the years
> with regards to William Wynne's conversion, but he's been good about
> addressing them (costs more $, but they are addressed). Most of the
issues
> arise from the fact that WW has modified the engine to put out higher HP
(he
> claims 100hp), changing the torque curve by using a different cam.
>
> The problems come from the fact that the lack of a support bearing at the
> prop end has resulted in a few snapped crank failures in high stress
> applications (mostly Corvairs i
Message 25
| 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: Corvair Engine |
At all in for 8 k why not buy a used aircraft engine at around 800 to 1000
hours ? Following the advice of Tony B it makes good sense, unless you're in
for a bit more adventure than safe reliability.
Juss axin
John
Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
-----Original message-----
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 21, 2010 16:09:11 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
If you are going to do the full boat WW conversion.....and probably looking
at in the ballpark of $6000 to $7000 for your conversion/overhaul.....why
not spend another grand for at least the Weseman BTA 5th bearing and not
have to worry about the crank at all? In the overall grand scheme (or cost)
of things, $1000 is not that much....
Ryan
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.net
> wrote:
> Kip, I was considering the full WW conversion except for the 5th
> bearing. The engines without the 5th bearing operated OK for years.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
> *To:* pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:01 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>
> On political comment boards, 'encouraging them' is known as 'feeding the
> trolls' - it's like at the zoo - no feeding the animals! :)
>
> To be fair, there have been some issues that have come up over the years
> with regards to William Wynne's conversion, but he's been good about
> addressing them (costs more $, but they are addressed). Most of the
issues
> arise from the fact that WW has modified the engine to put out higher HP
(he
> claims 100hp), changing the torque curve by using a different cam.
>
> The problems come from the fact that the lack of a support bearing at the
> prop end has resulted in a few snapped crank failures in high stress
> applications (mostly Corvairs i
Message 26
| 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: Corvair Engine |
Kip, I will seriously consider that option when I get to it. Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kip and Beth Gardner
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
One last comment, and something else not mentioned by anyone. Namely,
it's easy to put electric start on the Corvair. Now I know this will
send all the purists into apoplectic fits, BUT as a Lefty, and therefore
by definition something of a Klutz, I don't relish the thought of doing
a jig in front of (or even to the side of) a large moving piece of wood.
Putting an electrical system of a C-85 or C-90 is a bit more costly,
I've heard.
Kip
On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Ryan Mueller wrote:
If you are going to do the full boat WW conversion.....and probably
looking at in the ballpark of $6000 to $7000 for your
conversion/overhaul.....why not spend another grand for at least the
Weseman BTA 5th bearing and not have to worry about the crank at all? In
the overall grand scheme (or cost) of things, $1000 is not that much....
Ryan
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Charles Campbell
<cncampbell@windstream.net> wrote:
Kip, I was considering the full WW conversion except for the 5th
bearing. The engines without the 5th bearing operated OK for years.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kip and Beth Gardner
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
On political comment boards, 'encouraging them' is known as
'feeding the trolls' - it's like at the zoo - no feeding the animals!
:)
To be fair, there have been some issues that have come up over
the years with regards to William Wynne's conversion, but he's been good
about addressing them (costs more $, but they are addressed). Most of
the issues arise from the fact that WW has modified the engine to put
out higher HP (he claims 100hp), changing the torque curve by using a
different cam.
The problems come from the fact that the lack of a support
bearing at the prop end has resulted in a few snapped crank failures in
high stress applications (mostly Corvairs installed in KR's). This is
fixed by the addition of a 5th bearing, of which there are a couple
after market choices that have been developed specifically for the
aircraft conversion. Roy's Garage in Michigan is one example.
Bernard, of course used a largely unmodified Corvair in his
"Last Original". You could do the same by doing a basic WW conversion
but leaving in the original cam, and setting up a pressure cowl for
cooling (thus allowing you to take out the blower fan) and probably get
50-60hp without (or at least fewer) concerns about the crank failing.
After all, "The Last Original" has been flying continuously for nearly
50 years now. For myself, I'm going the full WW conversion route, with
a 5th bearing from Roy's, because I think his 5th bearing design is the
best and easiest to incorporate into the engine.
Kip Gardner
On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Gary Boothe wrote:
Chuck,
PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a
WW student, and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are
you also on the Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols
with Corvairs, including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck,
Gardiner Mason, Axel Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch more
that will become airborne in a year or two. I think most comments are
meant in jest, as in the following, as requested by Dan Helsper (thanks
to John Hoffman):
http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
BTW=85Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop
carvers. Wanna=92 start another debate about the pros & cons of carving
your own prop? How about laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
Now look what you=92ve done! You got me started=85..
Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying
the center section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push
rods=85.the list goes on.
Point is: FAA calls it =91EXPERIMENTAL=92 for a very good
reason. I say, =93Go ahead and experiment. It=92s your dream.=94
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down=85)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
<pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this
for real? I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is
some REAL fault with the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real
or just done in jest? From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see
anything that would cause the bias unless it's just jealousy.
Chuck
www.buildersbooks.comhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhtt
p://forums.matronics.comConfidentiality Notice: This email is intended
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential, proprietary or privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are notified that any use, review,
dissemination, copying or action taken based on this message or its
attachments, if any, is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy or
delete all copies of the original message and any attachments. Thank
you.
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" style="color: blue;
text-decoration: underline; ">www.buildersbooks.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">www.homebuilthelp.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List"
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 27
| 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: Corvair Engine |
Jack Textor has a spreadsheet of pretty much all the builders on this list and
has a column for "engine". I didn't count the distribution but it looks like
there are a lot of us, myself included, that are using the Corvair. Some of the
guys using Corvairs in other airframes (Mark Langford and Dan Weseman come
to mind) have abused the crap out of them and the engine stays together pretty
darn well.
Dave Aldrich
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324045#324045
Message 28
| 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: Corvair Engine |
"Will it take a 150 Ezra?"
do not archive.
John Hofmann
Vice-President, Information Technology
The Rees Group, Inc.
2424 American Lane
Madison, WI 53704
Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150
Fax: 608.443.2474
Email: jhofmann@reesgroupinc.com
On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:56 AM, AmsafetyC@aol.com wrote:
> At all in for 8 k why not buy a used aircraft engine at around 800 to
1000 hours ? Following the advice of Tony B it makes good sense, unless
you're in for a bit more adventure than safe reliability.
>
> Juss axin
>
> John
>
> Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
>
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tue, Dec 21, 2010 16:09:11 GMT+00:00
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>
> If you are going to do the full boat WW conversion.....and probably
looking at in the ballpark of $6000 to $7000 for your
conversion/overhaul.....why not spend another grand for at least the
Weseman BTA 5th bearing and not have to worry about the crank at all? In
the overall grand scheme (or cost) of things, $1000 is not that much....
>
> Ryan
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Charles Campbell
<cncampbell@windstream.net> wrote:
> Kip, I was considering the full WW conversion except for the 5th
bearing. The engines without the 5th bearing operated OK for years.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kip and Beth Gardner
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>
> On political comment boards, 'encouraging them' is known as 'feeding
the trolls' - it's like at the zoo - no feeding the animals! :)
>
> To be fair, there have been some issues that have come up over the
years with regards to William Wynne's conversion, but he's been good
about addressing them (costs more $, but they are addressed). Most of
the issues arise from the fact that WW has modified the engine to put
out higher HP (he claims 100hp), changing the torque curve by using a
different cam.
>
> The problems come from the fact that the lack of a support bearing at
the prop end has resulted in a few snapped crank failures in high stress
applications (mostly Corvairs installed in KR's). This is fixed by the
addition of a 5th bearing, of which there are a couple after market
choices that have been developed specifically for the aircraft
conversion. Roy's Garage in Michigan is one example.
>
> Bernard, of course used a largely unmodified Corvair in his "Last
Original". You could do the same by doing a basic WW conversion but
leaving in the original cam, and setting up a pressure cowl for cooling
(thus allowing you to take out the blower fan) and probably get 50-60hp
without (or at least fewer) concerns about the crank failing. After
all, "The Last Original" has been flying continuously for nearly 50
years now. For myself, I'm going the full WW conversion route, with a
5th bearing from Roy's, because I think his 5th bearing design is the
best and easiest to incorporate into the engine.
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Gary Boothe wrote:
>
>> Chuck,
>> PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW
student, and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are you
also on the Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols with
Corvairs, including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner
Mason, Axel Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch more that will
become airborne in a year or two. I think most comments are meant in
jest, as in the following, as requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John
Hoffman):
>> http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
>> BTW=85Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers.
Wanna=92 start another debate about the pros & cons of carving your own
prop? How about laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
>> Now look what you=92ve done! You got me started=85..
>> Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the
center section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push
rods=85.the list goes on.
>> Point is: FAA calls it =91EXPERIMENTAL=92 for a very good reason. I
say, =93Go ahead and experiment. It=92s your dream.=94
>> Gary Boothe
>> Cool, Ca.
>> Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
>> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
>> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
>> (23 ribs down=85)
>>
>> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>>
>> I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for
real? I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some
REAL fault with the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or
just done in jest? =46rom watching William Wynne's videos I can't see
anything that would cause the bias unless it's just jealousy.
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>> www.buildersbooks.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> Confidentiality Notice: This email is intended for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
notified that any use, review, dissemination, copying or action taken
based on this message or its attachments, if any, is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
and destroy or delete all copies of the original message and any
attachments. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">www.aeroelectric.com
>>
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" style="color: blue;
text-decoration: underline; ">www.buildersbooks.com
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List"
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/ch
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
Message 29
| 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: Thanks for the encouragement |
I think it was Dan who sent me a message about glueing the under side of
the wing to get the fabric to stick to the concave shape until rib
stitching. Dan, if that was you maybe you should send it to Dave before
he gets carried away and tightens everything up before the under side is
done.
----- Original Message -----
From: dnboyd1@comcast.net
To: pietenpol-list
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:31 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Thanks for the encouragement
I like to extend 'Thanks' to the following guys who made helpful
inputs about the Stewart Covering System. This is my first plane so I
have had a huge learning curve in all the areas of expertise. I've
ordered it and will keep you posted on how it works out.
Thanks to: Jeff Erekson, Rick Holland, Malcom Morrison, Dangerous
Dave, and Dan Helsper.
Merrry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Dave Boyd
Champaign, IL
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
Message 30
| 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: Corvair Engine |
Kevin wrote:
"My corvair did not, and does not, keep me up at night."
See, that's why Kevin never tries to fly his Piet at night...
Get it?...
His Corvair won't keep him up...
at night...
BC
DO NOT ARCHIVE!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324048#324048
Message 31
| 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: Corvair Engine |
Yes a 0 time C85 is possible for under 6K, including generator and starter.
Jack
DSM
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kip and Beth
Gardner
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
Of course, as Jack will attest, aircraft engines never fail. :). I also
recall Amy Laboda, back when she was writing for EAA, doing a column about
how the crank snapped on takeoff on her big, old reliable
Continental-powered Cessna, putting her & her 2 daughters into Biscayne Bay.
It's flying, sh** can happen no matter what your choice of aircraft, engine,
etc.
The other thing to consider is that even with the 5th bearing, if you are
good at doing your own work, a zero-time Corvair conversion will cost you
about 6K. For that amount, you might get an A-65 overhauled, but how many
guys on this list have A-65's, and have concerns about flying on hot days,
or carrying passengers who weigh more than about 180lbs., or worry about the
length of their runways, etc. etc. ? Can you get a C-85 or C-95 rebuilt to
zero time for 6K? I'm not sure, but that would be the appropriate
comparison. (On a different, but related note, Oscar, how IS the C-85
working out? Better, I hope).
This is the debate that will NEVER die :)
Kip Gardner
On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Jack Phillips wrote:
Chuck,
Yes it is in jest, mostly. If I lived in the midwest, I would probably have
built my Piet with a Model A, because I really like the look and sound
(pockity, pockity) of that engine. However, for me reliability is key,
flying above the forests of North Carolina and the mountains of Virginia,
and I'm just not a fan of auto engine conversions for aircraft. The design
requirements are simply too different.
Car engines are not designed to operate anywhere near full power for more
than a few seconds at a time, whereas an aircraft engine must be capable of
full power continuously. That's why Corvairs require such little tricks as
painting the pushrod tubes white to try to keep the oil down to a manageable
temperature. Putting that engine in an airplane is asking it to do
something it was simply not designed to do. Now the Corvair guys are adding
a 5th main bearing (at significant expense, negating the supposed cost
advantage of using a car engine to begin with) to handle the loads that a
propeller puts on the crankshaft. There have been numerous cases of
crankshafts breaking in Corvairs in aircraft, although I don't know of any
in a Pietenpol, other than Shad Bell's.
Car engines (other than the Model A) also tend to get their power at higher
RPMs than are useful for driving propellers. Props really loose efficiency
when the tips start going supersonic (to say nothing of being VERY noisy -
ever hear a T-6 takeoff?) and with the size props used on planes of our size
that happens at about 2500 RPM. Power generated at speeds faster than that
is not very useful and there needs to be substantial torque in the 2000 -
2500 RPM range. That's why so many auto engine conversions require gearing
to reduce the propeller speed, which adds cost, weight and complexity, and
hurts reliablity.
As Gary says, these are EXPERIMENTAL airplanes, so you are free to do as you
wish. Just realize that in this as in most decisions made in building an
airplane, there are tradeoffs. Reliability is not something I choose to
trade away, if I can help it.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Boothe
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
Chuck,
PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW student,
and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are you also on the
Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols with Corvairs,
including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner Mason, Axel
Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch more that will become airborne
in a year or two. I think most comments are meant in jest, as in the
following, as requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John Hoffman):
http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
BTW.Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers. Wanna' start
another debate about the pros & cons of carving your own prop? How about
laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
Now look what you've done! You got me started...
Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the center
section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push rods..the list
goes on.
Point is: FAA calls it 'EXPERIMENTAL' for a very good reason. I say, "Go
ahead and experiment. It's your dream."
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for real? I
plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some REAL fault with
the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or just done in jest?
>From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see anything that would cause
the bias unless it's just jealousy.
Chuck
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" style="color: blue; text-decoration:
underline; ">www.buildersbooks.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.homebuilthelp.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List" style="color: blue;
text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 32
| 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: Corvair Engine |
My observations (and they are just that - observations) at the Brodhead Pietenpol
gatherings are that the majority of Piets that attend tend to be powered by
"traditional" aircraft engines - mostly Continentals. Over the last seven or
so gatherings that I've attended, I can probably count on one hand the aircraft
that were powered by Corvair engines (although they are increasing in numbers
of late). Ford Model A powered Piets have been slightly more common than the
Corvairs.
However, in following this List, it certainly seems that a majority of new builders
talk about powering their craft with Corvairs. Only time will tell how many
will complete their projects, and of those that complete, how many will follow
through with the Corvair choice. I know of several builders (myself included)
who originally planned to use Corvair power, and changed that plan mid-stream
(for various reasons).
For years, one of the big drawing cards for the Corvair was its simplicity and
low cost. Now, with the introduction of the recommended fifth bearing, the Corvair
is a little more complicated and definitely a bit more expensive. On the
other hand, the fifth bearing seems to have eliminated a lot of the reliability
issues. Peace of mind is worth a LOT of dollars.
The choice is yours.
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324051#324051
Message 33
| 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: Corvair Engine |
I love beating a dead horse...
Chuck - This may be a better answer to your initial question: if I were starting
again I would likely use the $6000, 0 time C-85 with starter and generator that
Bill Church mentions. I don't think I have $6000 in the motor but I think
we'd be getting close with the fifth bearing.
I'm thoroughly satisfied with my corvair and do not regret the choice.
Now if I could just get it to provide thrust at night! (that was funny, Bill)
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324057#324057
Message 34
| 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: Corvair Engine |
Sorry. Jack talked about the C-85
do not archive
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324058#324058
Message 35
| 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: Corvair Engine |
But what does Mrs. Purtee think about THAT?!!!
Do not archive
>
>
>Now if I could just get it to provide thrust at night! (that was funny, Bill)
>
>--------
>Kevin "Axel" Purtee
>NX899KP
>Austin/Georgetown, TX
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324057#324057
>
--
Jeff Boatright
"Now let's think about this..."
Message 36
| 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: Corvair Engine |
Something tells me she's quite happy that it's only a Corvair issue....
Ryan
do not archive
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu> wrote:
> But what does Mrs. Purtee think about THAT?!!!
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> *Now if I could just get it to provide thrust at night! * (that was funny,
> Bill)
>
> --------
> Kevin "Axel" Purtee
> NX899KP
> Austin/Georgetown, TX
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324057#324057
>
>
> --
>
>
> Jeff Boatright
> "Now let's think about this..."
>
> *
>
>
Message 37
| 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: Sky Scout pix |
Here are a couple pix of my old Sky Scout. I bought it as a project, later sold
it to Dennis Hall (Brodhead) who finished it into one of the nicest looking planes
I have ever seen. Dennis' work was flawless!
--------
PAPA MIKE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324063#324063
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1347_480.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1346_610.jpg
Message 38
| 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: Corvair Engine |
I have about $6000 in my Corvair (without the 5th bearing). Other than just
what you are comfortable with the other main consideration may be resale
value (assuming you care about that). A homebuilt with an aircraft engine
will probably always be worth more one with a car engine. But it seems that
the resale value of flying Piets that require little if any work run from
$10,000 to $12,000 no matter what engine is installed.
rick
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:17 PM, kevinpurtee <kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>wrote:
> kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>
>
> I love beating a dead horse...
>
> Chuck - This may be a better answer to your initial question: if I were
> starting again I would likely use the $6000, 0 time C-85 with starter and
> generator that Bill Church mentions. I don't think I have $6000 in the
> motor but I think we'd be getting close with the fifth bearing.
>
> I'm thoroughly satisfied with my corvair and do not regret the choice.
>
> Now if I could just get it to provide thrust at night! (that was funny,
> Bill)
>
> --------
> Kevin "Axel" Purtee
> NX899KP
> Austin/Georgetown, TX
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324057#324057
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 39
| 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: Sky Scout pix |
Actually that plane was owned by Earl Myers for a while here in Louisville Ohio
and Earl had it up thru fabric
covering when it changed hands and ended up with Dennis but for sure---- Mike Cushway
was the original builder of
the start of that airplane. It did turn out very nicely !!
Earl got out of aviation completely for some reason and got into model trains and
railroading but have lost touch
with him so not sure what he is up to lately.
Mike C.
do not archive
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-
>list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of 899PM
>Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:15 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Sky Scout pix
>
><rockriverrifle@hotmail.com>
>
>Here are a couple pix of my old Sky Scout. I bought it as a project,
>later sold it to Dennis Hall (Brodhead) who finished it into one of the
>nicest looking planes I have ever seen. Dennis' work was flawless!
>
>--------
>PAPA MIKE
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324063#324063
>
>
>Attachments:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1347_480.jpg
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1346_610.jpg
>
>
Message 40
| 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: Sky Scout pix |
That is one gorgeous airplane. Anyone going to Brodhead must give it a once
over...just beautiful.
Ryan
do not archive
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:15 PM, 899PM <rockriverrifle@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here are a couple pix of my old Sky Scout. I bought it as a project, later
> sold it to Dennis Hall (Brodhead) who finished it into one of the nicest
> looking planes I have ever seen. Dennis' work was flawless!
>
> --------
> PAPA MIKE
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324063#324063
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1347_480.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1346_610.jpg
>
>
Message 41
| 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: Sky Scout pix |
Absolutely gorgeous.
Wayne Bressler Jr.
Taildraggers, Inc.
taildraggersinc.com
Do not archive.
On Dec 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, "899PM" <rockriverrifle@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here are a couple pix of my old Sky Scout. I bought it as a project, later sold
it to Dennis Hall (Brodhead) who finished it into one of the nicest looking
planes I have ever seen. Dennis' work was flawless!
>
> --------
> PAPA MIKE
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324063#324063
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1347_480.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1346_610.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 42
| 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: Corvair Engine |
Jack, I've been having some trouble getting the list to recognise that
my posts are legit. I'll see if this goes through. If it does, let me
know where I can get a 0 time C85 for $6K and I will probably dance at
your next wedding!
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
Yes a 0 time C85 is possible for under 6K, including generator and
starter.
Jack
DSM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kip and
Beth Gardner
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:35 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
Of course, as Jack will attest, aircraft engines never fail. :). I
also recall Amy Laboda, back when she was writing for EAA, doing a
column about how the crank snapped on takeoff on her big, old reliable
Continental-powered Cessna, putting her & her 2 daughters into Biscayne
Bay. It's flying, sh** can happen no matter what your choice of
aircraft, engine, etc.
The other thing to consider is that even with the 5th bearing, if you
are good at doing your own work, a zero-time Corvair conversion will
cost you about 6K. For that amount, you might get an A-65 overhauled,
but how many guys on this list have A-65's, and have concerns about
flying on hot days, or carrying passengers who weigh more than about
180lbs., or worry about the length of their runways, etc. etc. ? Can
you get a C-85 or C-95 rebuilt to zero time for 6K? I'm not sure, but
that would be the appropriate comparison. (On a different, but related
note, Oscar, how IS the C-85 working out? Better, I hope).
This is the debate that will NEVER die :)
Kip Gardner
On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Jack Phillips wrote:
Chuck,
Yes it is in jest, mostly. If I lived in the midwest, I would
probably have built my Piet with a Model A, because I really like the
look and sound (pockity, pockity) of that engine. However, for me
reliability is key, flying above the forests of North Carolina and the
mountains of Virginia, and I'm just not a fan of auto engine conversions
for aircraft. The design requirements are simply too different.
Car engines are not designed to operate anywhere near full power for
more than a few seconds at a time, whereas an aircraft engine must be
capable of full power continuously. That's why Corvairs require such
little tricks as painting the pushrod tubes white to try to keep the oil
down to a manageable temperature. Putting that engine in an airplane is
asking it to do something it was simply not designed to do. Now the
Corvair guys are adding a 5th main bearing (at significant expense,
negating the supposed cost advantage of using a car engine to begin
with) to handle the loads that a propeller puts on the crankshaft.
There have been numerous cases of crankshafts breaking in Corvairs in
aircraft, although I don't know of any in a Pietenpol, other than Shad
Bell's.
Car engines (other than the Model A) also tend to get their power at
higher RPMs than are useful for driving propellers. Props really loose
efficiency when the tips start going supersonic (to say nothing of being
VERY noisy - ever hear a T-6 takeoff?) and with the size props used on
planes of our size that happens at about 2500 RPM. Power generated at
speeds faster than that is not very useful and there needs to be
substantial torque in the 2000 - 2500 RPM range. That's why so many
auto engine conversions require gearing to reduce the propeller speed,
which adds cost, weight and complexity, and hurts reliablity.
As Gary says, these are EXPERIMENTAL airplanes, so you are free to do
as you wish. Just realize that in this as in most decisions made in
building an airplane, there are tradeoffs. Reliability is not something
I choose to trade away, if I can help it.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary
Boothe
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:24 AM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
Chuck,
PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW
student, and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are you
also on the Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols with
Corvairs, including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner
Mason, Axel Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch more that will
become airborne in a year or two. I think most comments are meant in
jest, as in the following, as requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John
Hoffman):
http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
BTW.Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers. Wanna'
start another debate about the pros & cons of carving your own prop? How
about laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
Now look what you've done! You got me started...
Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the
center section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push
rods..the list goes on.
Point is: FAA calls it 'EXPERIMENTAL' for a very good reason. I say,
"Go ahead and experiment. It's your dream."
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for
real? I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some
REAL fault with the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or
just done in jest? From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see
anything that would cause the bias unless it's just jealousy.
Chuck
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">www.aeroelectric.comhref="http://www.buildersbooks.com"
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">www.buildersbooks.comstyle="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">www.homebuilthelp.comstyle="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contributionhref="http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Pietenpol-List" style="color: blue; text-decoration:
underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listblue;
text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
www.buildersbooks.comhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhtt
p://forums.matronics.com
Message 43
| 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: Corvair Engine |
I can't win. I'll have to have my attorney look over my posts so you smart-alecks
can't take my comments out of context.
Gene?!?
do not archive
--------
Kevin "Axel" Purtee
NX899KP
Austin/Georgetown, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324075#324075
Message 44
| 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: Corvair Engine |
Hey, you built your own Piet and flew it to Brodhead. You're a winner
every day you wake up!
>
> I can't win. I'll have to have my attorney look over my posts so
>you smart-alecks can't take my comments out of context.
>
>Gene?!?
>
>do not archive
>
>--------
>Kevin "Axel" Purtee
>NX899KP
>Austin/Georgetown, TX
>
--
Jeff Boatright
"Now let's think about this..."
Message 45
| 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: Corvair Engine |
True...
=C2-
As a matter of fact, you can buy a prop strike engine with all new componen
ts around 4-5k from Wentworth Avaition. Take it apart, rebuild the engine u
sing a new/rebuilt crank and then you have a new engine for a few thousand
$$$ less.
=C2-
However, you can go to Aeromax Avaition=C2-http://www.aeromaxaviation.com
/aeromax-100-hp-light-aircraft-engine=C2-and buy a kit for $6,500.00 to c
omplete your Corvair.
=C2-
I have followed Bill Clapp on these engines and his kits. He offers some se
t-up different than WW and I like his components better. My opinion is to c
ontact Bill Clapp and visit with him.=C2-I too plan on using a corvair en
gine as I will need extra power to get my extra redundant tissue!
=C2-
--- On Tue, 12/21/10, AmsafetyC@aol.com <AmsafetyC@aol.com> wrote:
From: AmsafetyC@aol.com <AmsafetyC@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
#yiv136870005 #yiv136870005yiv227279818 {word-wrap:break-word;background-c
olor:#ffffff;}
At all in for 8 k why not buy a used aircraft engine at around 800 to 1000
hours ? Following the advice of Tony B it makes good sense, unless you're i
n for a bit more adventure than safe reliability.=C2-=C2-
Juss axin
John
Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
-----Original message-----
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 21, 2010 16:09:11 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
If you are going to do the full boat WW conversion.....and probably looking
at in the ballpark of $6000 to $7000 for your conversion/overhaul.....why
not spend another grand for at least the Weseman BTA 5th bearing and not ha
ve to worry about the crank at all? In the overall grand scheme (or cost) o
f things, $1000 is not that much....
Ryan
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Charles Campbell <cncampbell@windstream.ne
t> wrote:
Kip, I was considering the full WW conversion except for the 5th bearing.
=C3=82=C2- The engines without the 5th bearing operated OK for years.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kip and Beth Gardner
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
On political comment boards, 'encouraging them' is known as 'feeding the tr
olls' - it's like at the zoo - no feeding the animals! =C3=82=C2-:)
To be fair, there have been some issues that have come up over the years wi
th regards to William Wynne's conversion, but he's been good about addressi
ng them (costs more $, but they are addressed). =C3=82=C2-Most of the iss
ues arise from the fact that WW has modified the engine to put out higher H
P (he claims 100hp), changing the torque curve by using a different cam.
=C3=82=C2-
The problems come from the fact that the lack of a support bearing at the p
rop end has resulted in a few snapped crank failures in high stress applica
tions (mostly Corvairs installed in KR's). =C3=82=C2-This is fixed by the
addition of a 5th bearing, of which there are a couple after market choice
s that have been developed specifically for the aircraft conversion. =C3=82
=C2-Roy's Garage in Michigan is one example. =C3=82=C2-
Bernard, of course used a largely unmodified Corvair in his "Last Original"
. =C3=82=C2-You could do the same by doing a basic WW conversion but leav
ing in the original cam, and setting up a pressure cowl for cooling (thus a
llowing you to take out the blower fan)=C3=82=C2-and probably get 50-60hp
without (or at least fewer) concerns about the crank failing. =C3=82=C2-
After all, "The Last Original" has been flying continuously for nearly 50 y
ears now. =C3=82=C2- For myself, I'm going the full WW conversion route,
with a 5th bearing from Roy's, because I think his 5th bearing design is th
e best and easiest to incorporate into the engine.
Kip Gardner
On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Gary Boothe wrote:
Chuck,
PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW student,
and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are you also on the
Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols with Corvairs, includ
ing the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner Mason, Axel Purtee
just to name a few. There are a bunch more that will become airborne in a y
ear or two. I think most comments are meant in jest, as in the following, a
s requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John Hoffman):
http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
BTW=C3=A2=82=AC=C2Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop
carvers. Wanna=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2 start another debate about the pros
& cons of carving your own prop? How about laminating your own struts, like
Axel?.....
Now look what you=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2ve done! You got me started=C3=A2
=82=AC=C2..
Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the center se
ction, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push rods=C3=A2=82=AC
=C2.the list goes on.
Point is: FAA calls it =C3=A2=82=AC=CB=9CEXPERIMENTAL=C3=A2=82=AC
=84=A2 for a very good reason. I say, =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93Go ahead and exp
eriment. It=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s your dream.=C3=A2=82=AC=EF=BD
Gary Boothe=C3=82=C2-
Cool, Ca.=C3=82=C2-
Pietenpol=C3=82=C2-(with laminated struts!)
WW Corvair Conversion,=C3=82=C2-Running!=C3=82=C2-
Tail done,=C3=82=C2-Fuselage=C3=82=C2-on gear=C3=82=C2-
(23 ribs down=C3=A2=82=AC=C2)
From:=C3=82=C2-owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com=C3=82=C2-<owne
r-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>=C3=82=C2-
To:=C3=82=C2-pietenpol-list@matronics.com=C3=82=C2-<pietenpol-list@matr
onics.com>=C3=82=C2-
Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list.=C3=82=C2- Is this fo
r real?=C3=82=C2- I plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there
is some REAL fault with the engine I need to know it now.=C3=82=C2- Is th
e bias real or just done in jest?=C3=82=C2- From watching William Wynne's
videos I can't see anything that would cause the bias unless it's just jea
lousy.
Chuck=C3=82=C2-=C3=82=C2-www.buildersbooks.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://forums.matronics.co
m
Confidentiality Notice: This email is intended for the sole use of the inte
nded recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary or privileged i
nformation. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that an
y use, review, dissemination, copying or action taken based on this message
or its attachments, if any, is prohibited. If you are not the intended rec
ipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy or delete all
copies of the original message and any attachments. Thank you.
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" style="color: blue; text-decoration
: underline; ">www.buildersbooks.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.homebuilthelp.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.co
m/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List" style="color:
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Piet
enpol-List
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
=C2=C2=B7=BA~=B0=C3=AD=C2=B2,=C3=9Eg(=93=C5-=C3=93M4
=C3=93G=C3=9Aq=C3=BC=C2=A2=C3=C3=A2z=C2=B9=C3=9E=C3=81=C3=8A.=C2=AE'=C2
=AB=C3=A5y=C2=ABJ=C3i=C2=A2=C2=BBX=C2=A2=C3=C3=8B=C5-=C3=8BlN=C2=AC
2=B0=C3=AD=9E'tg=C2=ADJ=B0=C5=BEa8=C3=81DA=B0=C3=BB
lh=C2=BD=C3=A9=BAz=C2=B8=C2=AC=C2=B6=82=AC=C5=BE{=C5=A1=9D
=C2=B8=C2=AC=C2=B4[=C2=A7u=C2=A2=C2=B1=C3=C3=82=93'$=C2=A2}
=C3-=C2=A8=C5=BE=C3=9A=C3=A2n=C3=ABb=C2=A2yb=C5=BEF=C3=9E=93=C5
=92-=C2=A1=C3=B8=C2=A7v=B9=C2=AD=C5=A1=C5-=C3=9Ei=C2=BA.=C2a=C5
-=C3=8C=C5=BEj=C2=BBz=C2=BA=C3=A2~'=C2=AD=C3=A7=CB=86=EF=BD=C3=87=C2
=A7=C2=B6+=C3=9E'=C3=AD=C2=B2=C5=A1=C3=A8=C2=BE'^v=C3=B2
=0A=0A=0A
Message 46
| 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: Corvair Engine |
Even though aircraft engines are probably the most logical choice for any
aircraft and are exteamly reliable, after reading Mr. Peek's book "The
Pietenpol Story" and thinking about what Bernard did, it just seemed to me
to be more in the spirit of things to use a Model A or Corvair.
Plus every time I would see a "genuine aircraft" 60 year old cylinder
selling for $900 I would think "I ain't paying $900 for some stinkin1940s
relic of the internal combustion stone age", even though I could afford it.
Pretty bold talk I know for a Piet builder that has not yet flown. And who
knows after the fight couple flights I may end up pulling the Corvair,
dumping it off at the junkyard where I got it and start scanning
Trade-A-Plane for a good O-200. But based on the number of successful
corvair conversions flying I doubt it.
rick
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net> wrote:
> Chuck,
>
>
> PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW student
,
> and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are you also on t
he
> Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols with Corvairs,
> including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner Mason, Axel
> Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch more that will become airbor
ne
> in a year or two. I think most comments are meant in jest, as in the
> following, as requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John Hoffman):
>
>
> http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
>
>
> BTW=85Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers. Wanna
=92
> start another debate about the pros & cons of carving your own prop? How
> about laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
>
>
> Now look what you=92ve done! You got me started=85..
>
>
> Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the center
> section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push rods=85.the lis
t
> goes on.
>
>
> Point is: FAA calls it =91EXPERIMENTAL=92 for a very good reason. I say,
=93Go
> ahead and experiment. It=92s your dream.=94
>
> Gary Boothe
> Cool, Ca.
> Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
> WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
> Tail done, Fuselage on gear
> (23 ribs down=85)
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com <
> owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
> *To*: pietenpol-list@matronics.com <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent*: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
>
> *Subject*: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
>
> I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for real?
I
> plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some REAL fault w
ith
> the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or just done in jest?
> From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see anything that would caus
e
> the bias unless it's just jealousy.
>
>
> Chuck
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *www.buildersbooks.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This email is intended for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary or
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> notified that any use, review, dissemination, copying or action taken bas
ed
> on this message or its attachments, if any, is prohibited. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and dest
roy
> or delete all copies of the original message and any attachments. Thank y
ou.
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
============*
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 47
| 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: Corvair Engine |
Oh, it's far too late for that my friend. :)
Ryan
do not archive
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:23 PM, kevinpurtee <kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>wrote:
> kevin.purtee@us.army.mil>
>
> I can't win. I'll have to have my attorney look over my posts so you
> smart-alecks can't take my comments out of context.
>
> Gene?!?
>
> do not archive
>
> --------
> Kevin "Axel" Purtee
> NX899KP
> Austin/Georgetown, TX
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324075#324075
>
>
Message 48
| 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: Sky Scout pix |
Thanks for the wonderful pictures of the Sky Scout! If there are any other
pictures, please let me know, or send them along. I would REALLY
appreciate it.
Thanks and fly SAFELY,
Ray Krause
Waiex 51YX, Jabiru 3300 (1197), Sensenich wood prop, AeroCarb (#2 needle
modified), Dynon D-180, Garmin SL 30 NavCom, Garmin 327 transponder, Garmin
Aera 560, nav and strobe lights: 231 hrs., building the Sky Scout ....
slowly
----- Original Message -----
From: "899PM" <rockriverrifle@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:15 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Sky Scout pix
>
> Here are a couple pix of my old Sky Scout. I bought it as a project, later
> sold it to Dennis Hall (Brodhead) who finished it into one of the nicest
> looking planes I have ever seen. Dennis' work was flawless!
>
> --------
> PAPA MIKE
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324063#324063
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1347_480.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1346_610.jpg
>
>
>
Message 49
| 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: Sky Scout pix |
Actually, that beautiful Sky Scout that Dennis Hall completed isn't in Brodhead
anymore. It was sold, and now lives in the Port Townsend Aero Museum, in Washington,
not too far from Seattle.
http://www.ptaeromuseum.com/pietenpol.html
Bill C.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324092#324092
Message 50
| 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: Thanks for the encouragement |
Chuck,thanks for the concern,but gluing fabric to ribs is worse than solid landing
gear with steel wheels.Besides its not approved.Dave
--------
Covering Piet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=324093#324093
Message 51
| 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: Progress Pics |
|| I'm used to Poly Fiber that requires those extra steps. Maybe I need to
switch.
>
>
Only if you want to avoid nerve damage in later life due to mek fumes.
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 52
| 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: Corvair Engine |
Tom Wottreng, email me offline for his contact information. Tom is an A&P;
IA who specializes in small Continentals. He is a great fellow and a superb
teacher. He and I did the final assembly of my engine. I don't know what
Tom charges now for an 85, but I can say I would trust him with my life and
his engines are a bargain. Attached is a picture of my 85.
Jack
DSM
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charles
Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
Jack, I've been having some trouble getting the list to recognise that my
posts are legit. I'll see if this goes through. If it does, let me know
where I can get a 0 time C85 for $6K and I will probably dance at your next
wedding!
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack <mailto:jack@textors.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
Yes a 0 time C85 is possible for under 6K, including generator and starter.
Jack
DSM
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kip and Beth
Gardner
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
Of course, as Jack will attest, aircraft engines never fail. :). I also
recall Amy Laboda, back when she was writing for EAA, doing a column about
how the crank snapped on takeoff on her big, old reliable
Continental-powered Cessna, putting her & her 2 daughters into Biscayne Bay.
It's flying, sh** can happen no matter what your choice of aircraft, engine,
etc.
The other thing to consider is that even with the 5th bearing, if you are
good at doing your own work, a zero-time Corvair conversion will cost you
about 6K. For that amount, you might get an A-65 overhauled, but how many
guys on this list have A-65's, and have concerns about flying on hot days,
or carrying passengers who weigh more than about 180lbs., or worry about the
length of their runways, etc. etc. ? Can you get a C-85 or C-95 rebuilt to
zero time for 6K? I'm not sure, but that would be the appropriate
comparison. (On a different, but related note, Oscar, how IS the C-85
working out? Better, I hope).
This is the debate that will NEVER die :)
Kip Gardner
On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Jack Phillips wrote:
Chuck,
Yes it is in jest, mostly. If I lived in the midwest, I would probably have
built my Piet with a Model A, because I really like the look and sound
(pockity, pockity) of that engine. However, for me reliability is key,
flying above the forests of North Carolina and the mountains of Virginia,
and I'm just not a fan of auto engine conversions for aircraft. The design
requirements are simply too different.
Car engines are not designed to operate anywhere near full power for more
than a few seconds at a time, whereas an aircraft engine must be capable of
full power continuously. That's why Corvairs require such little tricks as
painting the pushrod tubes white to try to keep the oil down to a manageable
temperature. Putting that engine in an airplane is asking it to do
something it was simply not designed to do. Now the Corvair guys are adding
a 5th main bearing (at significant expense, negating the supposed cost
advantage of using a car engine to begin with) to handle the loads that a
propeller puts on the crankshaft. There have been numerous cases of
crankshafts breaking in Corvairs in aircraft, although I don't know of any
in a Pietenpol, other than Shad Bell's.
Car engines (other than the Model A) also tend to get their power at higher
RPMs than are useful for driving propellers. Props really loose efficiency
when the tips start going supersonic (to say nothing of being VERY noisy -
ever hear a T-6 takeoff?) and with the size props used on planes of our size
that happens at about 2500 RPM. Power generated at speeds faster than that
is not very useful and there needs to be substantial torque in the 2000 -
2500 RPM range. That's why so many auto engine conversions require gearing
to reduce the propeller speed, which adds cost, weight and complexity, and
hurts reliablity.
As Gary says, these are EXPERIMENTAL airplanes, so you are free to do as you
wish. Just realize that in this as in most decisions made in building an
airplane, there are tradeoffs. Reliability is not something I choose to
trade away, if I can help it.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP "Icarus Plummet"
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Boothe
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
Chuck,
PLEASE do not encourage them! You are on a good path. Become a WW student,
and enjoy the process of building your own engine, too. Are you also on the
Corvair List? There are a bunch of flying Pietenpols with Corvairs,
including the Bell boys, all the Big Piets, PF Beck, Gardiner Mason, Axel
Purtee just to name a few. There are a bunch more that will become airborne
in a year or two. I think most comments are meant in jest, as in the
following, as requested by Dan Helsper (thanks to John Hoffman):
http://gallery.me.com/johnnyskyrocket#100017
BTW.Dan Helsper and PF Beck are also accomplished prop carvers. Wanna' start
another debate about the pros & cons of carving your own prop? How about
laminating your own struts, like Axel?.....
Now look what you've done! You got me started...
Painting with house paint, raising the turtledecks, modifying the center
section, using motorcycle wheels, rear control stick push rods..the list
goes on.
Point is: FAA calls it 'EXPERIMENTAL' for a very good reason. I say, "Go
ahead and experiment. It's your dream."
Gary Boothe
Cool, Ca.
Pietenpol (with laminated struts!)
WW Corvair Conversion, Running!
Tail done, Fuselage on gear
(23 ribs down.)
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com>
Sent: Tue Dec 21 05:43:24 2010
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Engine
I have perceived some anti-Corvair bias on the list. Is this for real? I
plan to use a Corvair engine in my Piet but if there is some REAL fault with
the engine I need to know it now. Is the bias real or just done in jest?
>From watching William Wynne's videos I can't see anything that would cause
the bias unless it's just jealousy.
Chuck
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" style="color: blue; text-decoration:
underline; ">www.buildersbooks.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.homebuilthelp.com
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List" style="color: blue;
text-decoration: underline;
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com
www.buildersbooks.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 53
| 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: Do new or rebuilt engines come painted? |
Mine fuselage will read "Unsafe At Any Speed" in 12" letters.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu> wrote:
>
> And it'll be PROUDLY displayed...Dammit!
>
>
>> pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> I try. I really do!
>>
>> I understand the FAA is considering changing their ruling on the 2"
>> "Experimental" placard required on all homebuilts without the NX
>> registration. They have decided that anything powered by a Corvair needs
>> the word "EXPERIMENTAL" in 12" letters on both sides of the cockpit
>>
>> Jack
>>
>> Do Not Archive
>>
>>
>
>
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 54
| 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: Soon will be building |
Hey Ryan
The Volmer is coming along slowly also. That is a complicated machine.
I much prefer the simplicity of the Pietenpol.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Soon will be building
Happy to hear you are at work on another Pietenpol. Just curious, what
happened to the Volmer....or is she still coming along as well?
Ryan
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Dick N <horzpool@goldengate.net>
wrote:
Hey Rick
I am working on a third one now. This one is a Sky Scout. Tail
feathers and wing ribs done done, fuselage is in the jig.
Thought I'd correct the record.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Soon will be building
Dan, you could always build a second Piet like Dick N. did. The
best of both worlds, one to fly and another to build.
rick
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:32 AM, <helspersew@aol.com> wrote:
Hi Kelly,
Even though I am done, I envy you in a lot of ways. Countless
enjoyable hours of designing and building in front of you. Enjoy every
minute of it rather than rush to get something done. I used my project
to learn a great deal on a variety of subjects.
Wishing all on this list a very blessed Christmas and Happy New
Year ahead.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
--
Rick Holland
Castle Rock, Colorado
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
Message 55
| 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: Corvair Engine |
Sometimes it's not what you look for but how you look for it.
For a long time I was checking Craigslist for "aircraft" and
"airplane". Then one day I thought " Why not search " lycoming".
Well, pressed enter and up pops an O-290 with 800hrs on
the bottom end and 50 on the top. Hmmm... that should
leave enough hours to see me the rest of my lifetime!
And it's $2500. No mags though. But I already have those!
Upon picking it up he says "You want an extra new ( in box )
cylinder for $200?" So I bought that. Next he turns up
with a box of the old pistons and six used cylinders, at
least two of which appear to have very few hours on them
and gives them to me.
OH YEAH! It came with the logbook too! Certified!
So look everywhere and look creatively.
Clif
"Imagination decides everything." ~ Blaise Pascal
Plus every time I would see a "genuine aircraft" 60 year old cylinder
selling for $900 I would think "I ain't paying $900 for some
stinkin1940s relic of the internal combustion stone age", even though I
could afford it.
and start scanning Trade-A-Plane for a good O-200. rick
Message 56
| 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: Sky Scout pix |
I'm gonna hafta get down there. Why is there always too
much to do??
Like updating my website. :-)
http://www.clifdawson.ca/
Clif
>
> Actually, that beautiful Sky Scout that Dennis Hall completed now lives in
> the Port Townsend Aero Museum, in Washington, not too far from Seattle.
>
>
> http://www.ptaeromuseum.com/pietenpol.html
>
> Bill C.
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! --
|