Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 10:22 AM - Re: Kit Planes accident and reliability article (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
2. 01:06 PM - Re: [Probable Spam] Re: Kit Planes accident and reliability article (LarryMcFarland)
3. 02:13 PM - Re: Kit Planes accident and reliability article (Bryan Martin)
4. 08:04 PM - Re: Kit Planes accident and reliability article (Don Walker)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kit Planes accident and reliability article |
Hmmmm.....
I think that's a little bit of a sweeping statement there Larry..If you remember
I suffered three valve guide failurs in my Subaru conversion..I would say that
as I had only 400 hours that was an appalling failure rate..Fourtunately I
was able to re-engineer the package and fix a fundamental flaw in the suppliers
product, but that's only because I have a lot of experience in this area.
Most folks I fear have little clue about such things, or about killer vapour lock,
how to engineer a cooling system etc.
If somebody with my experience can have such troubles (and who bought an engine
package to avoid having to mess with the conversion itself) then the average
Joe has no chance.
I would be interested to read the article because anecdotal evidence would appear
to dissagree with your statement.
Hopefully the market will weed out poor engine conversions...But at a potentially
great cost.
Don't get me wrong there are one or two really good auto conversions, but they
certainly are not cheaper on the initial installation cost (comparing an Eggenfelner
Soob with an experimantal Lycoming clone) and if you add the extra cooling
drag of a water cooled engine vs an aircooled (at least on a fast airplane)
then fuel consumption is going to be worse....Ok that last statement is fiercely
debated...:)
Where auto conversions really shine is in rebuild costs are much less..But is that
really a big factor in the overall cost of an airplane?..I personally doubt
it.
Frank
601 HDS Soob 400 hours
RV7a 330 hours IO360 WAAY faster and better MPG than the Zodiac...:).Also runs
on pump gas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stratus-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-stratus-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryMcFarland
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 8:56 AM
Subject: Stratus-List: Kit Planes accident and reliability article
--> <larry@macsmachine.com>
Hi Guys,
The October issue of Kit Planes has a fine article on accidents and compares a
rather large cross section of aircraft and engine types to the statistical records
over several years. Very good read! I was surprised to find that automotive
conversions held up better internally than the type certified aircraft engines.
Problems with automotive conversions were mostly associated with ignition,
fuel system, cooling systems or the re-drive. When people take the time to
do correct installation and maintenance in these areas, the automotive conversion
will easily match or exceed performance and economy of the type-certified
aircraft engines.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
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: Kit Planes accident and reliability |
article
Hi Frank,
The Kit Planes article is extremely well done and I don't contradict
what you said below. Their data only said internals of automotive
conversions and
perhaps carburetor systems were better represented than type certified
engines. The facts are not disputed, that cooling, ignition, fuel
systems and redrives
will be problematic so long as the user builder isn't totally aware of
what a good installation requires. It does take a little more education
for a Subaru
owner than for a Lyc or Cont because certified engines don't allow much
room for variation. If the owner does the study, I believe the Subaru
is capable of being
a better engine in cost per hour for the average builder. It's about
$8K for a Subaru now and $20+K for a Jabaru or 912 and much much more
for the TC engines.
I'm not an engine guy either Frank, but I learned a lot from the
difficulties you experienced and the travails you'd posted before me.
I also made mistakes, but none that cost any serious money or downtime
thanks to you.
Very best regards,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Hmmmm.....
>
> I think that's a little bit of a sweeping statement there Larry..If you remember
I suffered three valve guide failurs in my Subaru conversion..I would say
that as I had only 400 hours that was an appalling failure rate..Fourtunately
I was able to re-engineer the package and fix a fundamental flaw in the suppliers
product, but that's only because I have a lot of experience in this area.
>
> Most folks I fear have little clue about such things, or about killer vapour
lock, how to engineer a cooling system etc.
>
> If somebody with my experience can have such troubles (and who bought an engine
package to avoid having to mess with the conversion itself) then the average
Joe has no chance.
>
> I would be interested to read the article because anecdotal evidence would appear
to dissagree with your statement.
>
> Hopefully the market will weed out poor engine conversions...But at a potentially
great cost.
>
> Don't get me wrong there are one or two really good auto conversions, but they
certainly are not cheaper on the initial installation cost (comparing an Eggenfelner
Soob with an experimantal Lycoming clone) and if you add the extra cooling
drag of a water cooled engine vs an aircooled (at least on a fast airplane)
then fuel consumption is going to be worse....Ok that last statement is fiercely
debated...:)
>
> Where auto conversions really shine is in rebuild costs are much less..But is
that really a big factor in the overall cost of an airplane?..I personally doubt
it.
>
> Frank
>
> 601 HDS Soob 400 hours
> RV7a 330 hours IO360 WAAY faster and better MPG than the Zodiac...:).Also runs
on pump gas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stratus-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-stratus-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryMcFarland
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 8:56 AM
> To: zenith-list; stratus-list
> Subject: Stratus-List: Kit Planes accident and reliability article
>
> --> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
>
> Hi Guys,
> The October issue of Kit Planes has a fine article on accidents and compares
a rather large cross section of aircraft and engine types to the statistical records
over several years. Very good read! I was surprised to find that automotive
conversions held up better internally than the type certified aircraft
engines. Problems with automotive conversions were mostly associated with ignition,
fuel system, cooling systems or the re-drive. When people take the time
to do correct installation and maintenance in these areas, the automotive conversion
will easily match or exceed performance and economy of the type-certified
aircraft engines.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kit Planes accident and reliability article |
A properly engineered water cooled installation should have
considerably less cooling drag than an air-cooled installation. North
American was able to get enough thrust out of the cooling system for
the P-51 to almost cancel out the cooling drag. Other manufacturers
who just slapped a big radiator behind the prop didn't fare nearly as
well. Another example of good cooling design is the Spitfire. Neither
the Spitfire nor the Mustang ever had any problems with overheating in
flight. The problem is that most aircraft aren't designed around a
water cooled engine so compromises have to be made to get adequate
cooling.
On Aug 31, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
> (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>
> Don't get me wrong there are one or two really good auto
> conversions, but they certainly are not cheaper on the initial
> installation cost (comparing an Eggenfelner Soob with an
> experimantal Lycoming clone) and if you add the extra cooling drag
> of a water cooled engine vs an aircooled (at least on a fast
> airplane) then fuel consumption is going to be worse....Ok that last
> statement is fiercely debated...:)
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kit Planes accident and reliability article |
Frank,
to be honest, the reason we suffered the failures we did with the valve guides
is that these engines were rebuilt by people unfamiliar with aviation. Rhiner
had the work done by another shop during the last of his tenure and that
system followed until you and I started making waves.
The valves guides failed since they were Knurled guides. After mine failed
twice, I got another old soob and rebuilt it, but used the original guides, which
were never taken out, and just transfered the redrive and intakes systems
to the new engine. This engine has done very well without using guides with shoulders,
etc.
What I am saying is that these engines were shoddy work and done without
an understanding of aviation...knurled guides...that is the sickening part to
me. An original soob, or a soob with stock guides would do well if properly installed...though
the shoulders and better materials is a plus for sure. don
LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
Hi Frank,
The Kit Planes article is extremely well done and I don't contradict
what you said below. Their data only said internals of automotive
conversions and
perhaps carburetor systems were better represented than type certified
engines. The facts are not disputed, that cooling, ignition, fuel
systems and redrives
will be problematic so long as the user builder isn't totally aware of
what a good installation requires. It does take a little more education
for a Subaru
owner than for a Lyc or Cont because certified engines don't allow much
room for variation. If the owner does the study, I believe the Subaru
is capable of being
a better engine in cost per hour for the average builder. It's about
$8K for a Subaru now and $20+K for a Jabaru or 912 and much much more
for the TC engines.
I'm not an engine guy either Frank, but I learned a lot from the
difficulties you experienced and the travails you'd posted before me.
I also made mistakes, but none that cost any serious money or downtime
thanks to you.
Very best regards,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Hmmmm.....
>
> I think that's a little bit of a sweeping statement there Larry..If you remember
I suffered three valve guide failurs in my Subaru conversion..I would say
that as I had only 400 hours that was an appalling failure rate..Fourtunately
I was able to re-engineer the package and fix a fundamental flaw in the suppliers
product, but that's only because I have a lot of experience in this area.
>
> Most folks I fear have little clue about such things, or about killer vapour
lock, how to engineer a cooling system etc.
>
> If somebody with my experience can have such troubles (and who bought an engine
package to avoid having to mess with the conversion itself) then the average
Joe has no chance.
>
> I would be interested to read the article because anecdotal evidence would appear
to dissagree with your statement.
>
> Hopefully the market will weed out poor engine conversions...But at a potentially
great cost.
>
> Don't get me wrong there are one or two really good auto conversions, but they
certainly are not cheaper on the initial installation cost (comparing an Eggenfelner
Soob with an experimantal Lycoming clone) and if you add the extra cooling
drag of a water cooled engine vs an aircooled (at least on a fast airplane)
then fuel consumption is going to be worse....Ok that last statement is fiercely
debated...:)
>
> Where auto conversions really shine is in rebuild costs are much less..But is
that really a big factor in the overall cost of an airplane?..I personally doubt
it.
>
> Frank
>
> 601 HDS Soob 400 hours
> RV7a 330 hours IO360 WAAY faster and better MPG than the Zodiac...:).Also runs
on pump gas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stratus-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-stratus-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryMcFarland
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 8:56 AM
> To: zenith-list; stratus-list
> Subject: Stratus-List: Kit Planes accident and reliability article
>
> -->
>
>
> Hi Guys,
> The October issue of Kit Planes has a fine article on accidents and compares
a rather large cross section of aircraft and engine types to the statistical records
over several years. Very good read! I was surprised to find that automotive
conversions held up better internally than the type certified aircraft engines.
Problems with automotive conversions were mostly associated with ignition,
fuel system, cooling systems or the re-drive. When people take the time to
do correct installation and maintenance in these areas, the automotive conversion
will easily match or exceed performance and economy of the type-certified
aircraft engines.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
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! --
|