Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:34 AM - Re: Prop pitch and static RPM (Paul Mulwitz)
2. 05:20 AM - Re: Prop pitch and static RPM (Johann G.)
3. 06:19 AM - Re: Auto engine crankshaft bearings (n801bh@netzero.com)
4. 06:28 AM - Re: Prop pitch and static RPM (cgalley)
5. 06:34 AM - Re: Auto engine crankshaft bearings (Don Mountain)
6. 06:37 AM - Re: Prop pitch and static RPM (NYTerminat@aol.com)
7. 06:54 AM - Re: Auto conversiona (Don Mountain)
8. 07:45 AM - Re: Auto engine crankshaft bearings (Robin Bellach)
9. 08:19 AM - Re: Auto engine crankshaft bearings (Garrou, Douglas)
10. 08:28 AM - Rivnuts (Jeffrey A Beachy)
11. 09:08 AM - Re: Auto conversiona (jnbolding1)
12. 09:10 AM - Re: Auto conversiona (Paul Moore)
13. 09:15 AM - Re: Auto engine crankshaft bearings (Don Mountain)
14. 09:47 AM - Re: Rivnuts (N5SL)
15. 10:40 AM - Re: Rivnuts (Jim Hoak)
16. 11:51 AM - Re: Prop pitch and static RPM. (Gary Gower)
17. 12:00 PM - 701 Feet on the Floor (Rick R)
18. 12:02 PM - Re: Prop pitch and static RPM (Gary Gower)
19. 12:15 PM - Re: Prop pitch and static RPM. (Gary Gower)
20. 12:22 PM - Re: 701 Feet on the Floor (NYTerminat@aol.com)
21. 12:22 PM - Re: Auto engine crankshaft bearings. (Gary Gower)
22. 12:34 PM - Re: Prop pitch and static RPM. (NYTerminat@aol.com)
23. 12:45 PM - Re: 701 Feet on the Floor (John Hines)
24. 01:01 PM - Re: 701 Feet on the Floor (Jon Croke)
25. 01:04 PM - Re: Auto engine crankshaft bearings. (N5SL)
26. 02:38 PM - Corvair Engine Rebuild (Clyde Barcus)
27. 04:23 PM - Re: Sharpies - Ink Flow (Dave VanLanen)
28. 07:38 PM - Need input (JOHN STARN)
29. 08:02 PM - Re: 701 Feet on the Floor. (Gary Gower)
30. 08:13 PM - Re: Auto engine crankshaft bearings, (Gary Gower)
31. 08:29 PM - Re: Corvair Engine Rebuild, (Gary Gower)
32. 09:26 PM - Re: Need input (George Swinford)
33. 10:48 PM - Re: Need input (JOHN STARN)
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: | Re: Prop pitch and static RPM |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Bob,
It appears there is no way to know how static rpm will relate to
in-flight rpm. It depends on the exact drag of your plane in flight.
You must decide on the first setting of your variable pitch
propeller. I think the 6% number you have for static rpm should be
considered as a final maximum setting rather than the setting for
your first flight. If it were me, I would set it so the static rpm
was around 10% less than the red line. Then I would watch the rpm on
takeoff. If it gets even close to the red line while there is still
enough runway left to stop I would abort the takeoff and increase the
pitch for the next attempt.
Paul
XL wings
At 10:59 PM 12/18/2005, you wrote:
>Gary,
>I don't seem to be getting an answer to the question of what is the right
>setting. If I am thinking correctly the max permitted RPM of the
>Rotax 912S is
>5800 at 5 minutes max and the Woodcomp manual says to set the pitch
>so that you
>get 6% less than max RPM static that makes the correct static RPM 5452. Is
>this correct? Would that setting relate to max 5800 RPM in the air?
>
>Thanks for your comments
>
>Bob Spudis
-
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: Prop pitch and static RPM |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Johann G." <johann@rafpostur.is>
Hello Bob.
My setting is not set according to any precise percentage but I adjusted
it to around 5000 on ground. The max rpm on take off is 5300 rpm.
The plane jumps off the ground with no problem. A long runway is great
for the first flight, but the performance of this plane is so much
better than any other plane you can find so this rpm setting will not be
a problem.
When you have adjusted everything to your satisfaction, just decrease
the pitch setting to run 5300 on ground and you should be fine.
This is my plan.
Merry christmas to you all,
Johann G.
Iceland.
NYTerminat@aol.com wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: NYTerminat@aol.com
>
>Gary,
>I don't seem to be getting an answer to the question of what is the right
>setting. If I am thinking correctly the max permitted RPM of the Rotax 912S is
>5800 at 5 minutes max and the Woodcomp manual says to set the pitch so that you
>get 6% less than max RPM static that makes the correct static RPM 5452. Is
>this correct? Would that setting relate to max 5800 RPM in the air?
>
>Thanks for your comments
>
>Bob Spudis
>
>
>In a message dated 12/19/2005 12:18:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>ggower_99@yahoo.com writes:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
>
>Bob,
>
> Is important to set the engine (any engine) to give "safe" full power
>RPM's with the handle all the way in... This way when ever you need full power
>to take off or to abort a landing, just "let it go" without thinking about
>over reving the engine... Is more important to pay atention these few seconds
>or couple of minutes to perform a good manover than to watch the rpms to save
>the engine. In an emergency landing abort having extra things to care off, can
>give as you say in USA: an hands full.
>
> Just my point of view.
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower.
>
>
>NYTerminat@aol.com wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: NYTerminat@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 12/17/2005 12:46:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net writes:
>It can't hurt to set your prop to limit your total power so that you
>can't quite reach 100% power output. You can play with the prop
>setting after you have established the basic flying characteristics
>of your new plane.
>
>Of course, some other people might suggest it is foolish to ever
>attempt a takeoff with less than full power. Go figure . ..
>
>Paul
>XL wings
>Paul are you saying that the 5800 is 100% and that the 5452 static RPM is
>correct? To limit full power you can easily not push the throttle all the
>way. I
>would just assume set the pitch to what it is supposed to be the first time.
>Thanks
>
>Bob Spudis
>
>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: Auto engine crankshaft bearings |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>
for aircraft engine. How do these engine conversions beef up
these bearings or use a different bearing design to support these loads? It
seems the belt drive systems could be designed to handle the propeller loads
better, but then you have the belt to contend with?
Don
601XL, tail done, working on wings
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The belts are bulletproof. I have flown mine at 97 degreesF and just last week
at -34f. If it were weak that would have killed it for sure. And another thing,
I am transferring about twice the power through it then the manufacturer [ Belted
Air ] claims it can handle.
Ben
N801BH
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
for aircraft engine. How do these engine conversions beef up
these bearings or use a different bearing design to support these loads? It
seems the belt drive systems could be designed to handle the propeller loads
better, but then you have the belt to contend with?
Don
601XL, tail done, working on wings
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The belts are bulletproof. I have flown mine at 97 degreesF and just last week
at -34f. If it were weak that would have killed it for sure. And another thing,
I am transferring about twice the power through it then the manufacturer [ Belted
Air ] claims it can handle.
Ben
N801BH
BenHaas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Prop pitch and static RPM |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
There was a fatal first flight which I believe was due to setting the prop
with too low a pitch. Great acceleration but when the tips went
supersonic, the engine could not turn any faster and the resulting airspeed
that was too low to maintain a stabile flight. Resist the urge, if less
pitch is good for climb, much less is better.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor - EAA TC
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Prop pitch and static RPM
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>
> Bob,
>
> It appears there is no way to know how static rpm will relate to
> in-flight rpm. It depends on the exact drag of your plane in flight.
>
> You must decide on the first setting of your variable pitch
> propeller. I think the 6% number you have for static rpm should be
> considered as a final maximum setting rather than the setting for
> your first flight. If it were me, I would set it so the static rpm
> was around 10% less than the red line. Then I would watch the rpm on
> takeoff. If it gets even close to the red line while there is still
> enough runway left to stop I would abort the takeoff and increase the
> pitch for the next attempt.
>
> Paul
> XL wings
>
> At 10:59 PM 12/18/2005, you wrote:
>>Gary,
>>I don't seem to be getting an answer to the question of what is the right
>>setting. If I am thinking correctly the max permitted RPM of the
>>Rotax 912S is
>>5800 at 5 minutes max and the Woodcomp manual says to set the pitch
>>so that you
>>get 6% less than max RPM static that makes the correct static RPM 5452. Is
>>this correct? Would that setting relate to max 5800 RPM in the air?
>>
>>Thanks for your comments
>>
>>Bob Spudis
>
> -
>
>
>
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: Auto engine crankshaft bearings |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
Hello Tracy,
As a new builder that is unfamiler with the auto engine conversions being built
and sold for experimentals, of which I am considering installing, I am basically
looking for some real data to make comparisons for cost-benefit analysis.
And when I ask for real data on some of these subjects, I seem to get a
lot of by gosh and by golly "I knew a guy who flew one for 10,000 hours without
changing his spark plugs" kind of response. If I were to invest the money
and time required to build and install a functional Corvair engine in my 601XL,
what is the practical time limit for this engine? And what are the failure
modes of this engine? When I have 2000 hours on it, what wear limits should
I be checking? My experience in owning a Piper Cherokee and my brother
flying pipeline inspections with his Cessna show the TBO's are just an intermediate
indication of wear on the Lycoming engines. He has over 3500 hours on
his now, and runs it at the firewall all day flyin
g
inspections. If the Corvair's initial cost is half as much, but lasts only half
the time, then you lose with the Corvair since you have the added expense
of the intermediate tear down and rebuild.
Don
601 XL, tail done, working on wings
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Crvsecretary@aol.com
>I like the direction of your questions,
>but I have to ask you one more......
>..why don't the results speak for themselves?
>Take the Corvair, for instance. What is the
>profit motive for anyone to take one of these
>engines down to measure bearing wear after
>an undetermined amount of time? The only
>person who would have a need to gather
>this data is William Wynne, and if HE has
>not seen the need, does the need exist?
>Remembr, there are a lot of auto engines
>that exist, but only a few successfully
>transition into aero conversion applications.
>That's why they call this branch of aviation
>'experimental'.
>One more thing, and I'm not throwing stones,
>but most of the large displacement
>turbocharged Lycomings NEVER see TBO.
>This data IS available, but, does it really
>matter? If you own one, you KNOW 2000
>hours is between highly unlikely and fantasy.
>Does this stop people from flying them? No.
>Thanks for the lively thread.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tracy Smith
>Naugatuck, CT
>601xl N458XL (reserved)
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Prop pitch and static RPM |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: NYTerminat@aol.com
OK, I think I understand how everyone is thinking and the reasoning behind
your thoughts. Thank you all for your coments and a MERRY CHRISTMAS to all!
Thanks for your comments too Johann.
Bob Spudis
do not archive
In a message dated 12/19/2005 5:35:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net writes:
Bob,
It appears there is no way to know how static rpm will relate to
in-flight rpm. It depends on the exact drag of your plane in flight.
You must decide on the first setting of your variable pitch
propeller. I think the 6% number you have for static rpm should be
considered as a final maximum setting rather than the setting for
your first flight. If it were me, I would set it so the static rpm
was around 10% less than the red line. Then I would watch the rpm on
takeoff. If it gets even close to the red line while there is still
enough runway left to stop I would abort the takeoff and increase the
pitch for the next attempt.
Paul
XL wings
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: Auto conversiona |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
These are the same questions I have been having as I try to decide on an engine
for my 601XL. When I got to thinking about the difference in loads on crankshaft
bearings between an auto engine and an aircraft designed engine. The
only thing hanging off the back of an auto engine is a lightweight, balanced
flywheel with a clutch pressure plate on it. Maybe 15 pounds of a small diameter
that is easily balanced. Turning a concentric load through the transmission
input shaft that rides in a bearing in the center of the crankshaft. No
forces pulling the crankshaft out the back. On the other hand the airplane
engine has a large diameter moment of inertia load applying a high axial load
to the crankshaft and bearings. So, has there been any problems with crankshaft
vibration failures and bearing failures in these auto engine conversions
with direct drive to the propeller?
Don
601 XL, tail done, working on wings
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer"
>Along the same lines ask about the main
>bearings for the auto conversions. Has
>anybody seen a crank on the Jabiru 3300.
>I was just wondering about the width and
>diameter of the front main next to the
>propeller and If that main is the thrust bearing.??
>
>Blue Skies
>Bob Unternaehrer
>shilocom@mcmsys.com
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: Auto engine crankshaft bearings |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Robin Bellach" <601zv@ritternet.com>
Don,
I don't think anyone has yet put enoungh hours on a Corvair conversion to
use as any basis to establish a TBO. WW suggests a conservative figure of
1,500 hours, but note that, as he says, "With normal care in operation and
regular oil changes, the engine will easily make this mark. An additional
facet of the economy of Corvair engines is that when overhauled, virtually
every moving component inside this engine can be replaced or rebuilt for
less than $1,500. This dollar per hour engine life cycle cost cannot be
matched by any other engine in its class. A number of imported engines
cannot even come within eight times this cost." How does that compare to the
overhaul cost of a Lycosauarus?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Mountain" <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Auto engine crankshaft bearings
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
>
> Hello Tracy,
>
> As a new builder that is unfamiler with the auto engine conversions
being built and sold for experimentals, of which I am considering
installing, I am basically looking for some real data to make comparisons
for cost-benefit analysis. And when I ask for real data on some of these
subjects, I seem to get a lot of by gosh and by golly "I knew a guy who
flew one for 10,000 hours without changing his spark plugs" kind of
response. If I were to invest the money and time required to build and
install a functional Corvair engine in my 601XL, what is the practical time
limit for this engine? And what are the failure modes of this engine?
When I have 2000 hours on it, what wear limits should I be checking? My
experience in owning a Piper Cherokee and my brother flying pipeline
inspections with his Cessna show the TBO's are just an intermediate
indication of wear on the Lycoming engines. He has over 3500 hours on his
now, and runs it at the firewall all day flyin
> g
> inspections. If the Corvair's initial cost is half as much, but lasts
only half the time, then you lose with the Corvair since you have the added
expense of the intermediate tear down and rebuild.
>
> Don
> 601 XL, tail done, working on wings
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Crvsecretary@aol.com
>
> >I like the direction of your questions,
> >but I have to ask you one more......
> >..why don't the results speak for themselves?
> >Take the Corvair, for instance. What is the
> >profit motive for anyone to take one of these
> >engines down to measure bearing wear after
> >an undetermined amount of time? The only
> >person who would have a need to gather
> >this data is William Wynne, and if HE has
> >not seen the need, does the need exist?
> >Remembr, there are a lot of auto engines
> >that exist, but only a few successfully
> >transition into aero conversion applications.
> >That's why they call this branch of aviation
> >'experimental'.
> >One more thing, and I'm not throwing stones,
> >but most of the large displacement
> >turbocharged Lycomings NEVER see TBO.
> >This data IS available, but, does it really
> >matter? If you own one, you KNOW 2000
> >hours is between highly unlikely and fantasy.
> >Does this stop people from flying them? No.
> >Thanks for the lively thread.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Tracy Smith
> >Naugatuck, CT
> >601xl N458XL (reserved)
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Auto engine crankshaft bearings |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas" <dgarrou@hunton.com>
Don, I respectfully suggest that your tone is out of line. Larry is a longtime
list participant and, to my mind, a man of demonstrated good faith. I enjoy
reading his posts and frequently learn something when I do. Larry wouldn't feed
you anything "fishy" as part of a secret scheme to sell you a bad piece of
gear. Seriously, do you think he's been waiting like a spider to pounce on someone
who pestered him with Subaru questions? Ludicrous. He was trying to be
helpful, for goodness sake. Calm down, I implore you.
Your desire for engineering certainty is certainly understandable, but it may be
asking too much of the auto conversion world. Auto conversions are decidedly
more experimental than certified airplane engines. That fact is a bit like
spicy food -- some like it right off, some get used to it, others will never like
it. I'm probably in the last category, but that may reflect my (extreme)
ignorance on the topic of engines generally. Perhaps I'm sort of like the insurance
companies that way.
Doug Garrou
Project 801
www.garrou.com
---Original Message---
Time: 12:07:48 PM PST US
From: Don Mountain <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Auto engine crankshaft bearings
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
Larry, this sounds kind of fishy. You first tell me that Subaru is great, without
giving me TBO for the drive unit or the engine bearings, and then offer
one for sale cheap. Sounds like either you bought something that didn't work,
or wasn't any good after looking at it first hand. What modifications are
done to the typical Subaru engine bearings to keep the crank from pulling out
the front of the engine? Usually there is just a bronze thrust washer there,
and it wouldn't take much wear to leave too much clearance from for-aft slide
of the crank. Are they tapered roller bearings or something else? And wouldn't
a direct drive on a Subaru force it to run too slow for efficiency and
reduced horsepower?
Don
601 XL, tail done, working on wings
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Jeffrey A Beachy <beachyjeff@juno.com>
I am considering using rivnuts for the alum tip skin and the root skin to
allow for access to the strobe power supply and the fuel tank on my
CH701. Have others done this? If yes, do you recommend it?
Also, I purchased a rivnet tool from Harbor Freight and some rivnuts from
Aircraft Spruce, but I have not actually used either. Is the technique
self-explanatory? Drill a hole just larger than the rivnut? Is it a good
idea to dimple the alum that receives the rivnet in order to allow for
flush installation?
Jeff Beachy
CH701
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: Auto conversiona |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "jnbolding1" <jnbolding1@mail.ev1.net>
Maybe 15 pounds of a small diameter that is easily balanced. Turning a concentric
load through the transmission input shaft that rides in a bearing in the
center of the crankshaft. No forces pulling the crankshaft out the back.
On the other hand the airplane engine has a large diameter moment of inertia
load applying a high axial load to the crankshaft and bearings. So, has there
been any problems with crankshaft vibration failures and bearing failures
in these auto engine conversions with direct drive to the propeller?
>
> Don
> 601 XL, tail done, working on wings
Don I think you are forgetting about the clutch load that is placed on auto engines
with standard transmissions, in the Corvair this load goes all the way
thru the crank as the thrust bearing is on the other end. This load has been figured
out before as several times what the prop produces in thrust.
I don't remember the # but it's in the archives.
Of COURSE there have been failures with direct drive, also with geared and belt
driven redrives. Also with Continentals and Lycomings. The Corvair guys found
out that an extra 3 " of prop extension means a broken crank, guaranteed. They
also have a couple guys that UNDERSTAND how to monitor engine vibration and
using state of the art methods and instrumentation are getting a handle on what
works for the "masses" by sending the device around the country to be hooked
up to the "experimenters" airplane and the data collected is then analyzed
. It's called EXPERIMENTAL for a reason. There is a vast amount of knowledge
about auto engines in airplanes out there, MOST of it worth reading isn't in some
chat group. Auto engines aren't for everybody, that's why Rotax, Lycoming
and Continental are in business. Good luck with your project. JB
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: | Auto conversiona |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Paul Moore" <pmoore505@msn.com>
At the risk of winding Don up with additional non-scientifically based
evidence, I have a few comments.
Corvair engines have been tried on several homebuilt models since the 60's
when they were introduced. Some good and some bad. There were crank failure
problems that led to them falling out of vogue but WW promises to have
solved that issue. We have yet to have enough hours on his re-engineering
efforts to say definitively but so far, no failures that match previous
modes. These reports and stories are found all over the web - spend a few
minutes in Google and you'll find dozens.
Think about the TBO issue objectively for a minute. Now these numbers
probably aren't exactly right but here's the idea:
For the sake of simplicity let's assume there aren't any loads put on the
engine in an aircraft that would make any material difference in the
longevity. The corvair engine turning at 3000 rpm would push a car at 70 mph
(admitting gear ratios, etc. could change this slightly). Auto engines
employed in the 60's rarely exceeded 50,000 miles between overhauls but
let's give this one 75,000 miles just for grins. Ignoring slow driving
in-between, it would take about 1000 hours of operation at 70 mph to get to
75,000 miles. Realize this is at top performance, not simply loping along.
This rpm is in line with WW's tests and comparisons from his website. To
expect 1500 hours conservatively between O/H means expecting to go 105,000
miles in a 60's corvair at full performance. Add some real life harmonics
and stray stresses the engine was not intended to deal with (proven to exist
from the early failures) and who knows whether it's a good expectation. I'm
not saying this is a stretch, just trying to remove some emotion and get
back to some basic math. You decide your own comfort zone.
For perspective on my bias, I've personally built 3 auto/aircraft
conversions in the past - 2 subaru's, both with Don Parham redrives, and a
1/2 VW. That's pulled them from the cars and converted them myself, not sent
off to Ram or Stratus, etc. I've owned and driven for years 3 different
corvairs. All very reliable but notice, I chose an engine designed for an
aircraft for my XL.
And to the question of how much it costs to rebuild a Contisauris, I didn't
have to replace crank or cam, but did everything else (valves, guides,
bearings, oil gears, pistons & rings, etc.) with brand new parts and spent
right at $1,500 on the rebuild of the O-200.
Paul
XL - O200
Do Not Archive
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: Auto engine crankshaft bearings |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
Thank you Doug. I apologize to you and all others that have been reading this
line and interpreted my questioning as off key. I guess what I am really after
is how successful others have been with their auto conversions. What sort
of problems have people been having, and what sort of reasonable trouble free
operation have they had? And what did they have to do to modify the auto
engine for the additional prop loads. How many hours are people getting on
these engines? And are they reasonably safe for long cross country flights?
Don
601XL, tail done, working on wings
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas"
Don, I respectfully suggest that your tone is out of line. Larry is a longtime
list participant and, to my mind, a man of demonstrated good faith. . . .
.Calm down, I implore you.
Your desire for engineering certainty is certainly understandable, but it may
be asking too much of the auto conversion world. Auto conversions are decidedly
more experimental than certified airplane engines.
Doug Garrou
Project 801
www.garrou.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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL <nfivesl@yahoo.com>
Hi Jeff:
I'm not sure of the application you are talking about,
but the rivnuts are great for mounting things like the
strobe power supply and other items where it's
difficult to get a wrench on a back up nut. You
mentioned "skin" so be aware that there will be a gap
due to the small lip from the rivnut.
I have found my HF tool to work very well and comes in
handy for non-structural items where you don't care if
it is perfectly "flush." I've used mine to mount
instrument panel plates and wire-holders.
Good luck,
Scott Laughlin
www.cooknwithgas.com
--- Jeffrey A Beachy <beachyjeff@juno.com> wrote:
>
> I am considering using rivnuts for the alum tip skin
> and the root skin to
> allow for access to the strobe power supply and the
> fuel tank on my
> CH701. Have others done this? If yes, do you
> recommend 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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jim Hoak" <planejim@bellsouth.net>
Jeff,
FWIW I've worked with Rivnuts, Nutplates etc for over 40 years. The airline
I worked at quit using Rivnuts years ago. The only place I personally use
Rivnuts is in interior installation and places like that. Nutplates are more
expensive and require more work (tools ) to install but, in my opinion,
should be used where you are going to need to remove ocaisionally. The
nutplates will probably hold up longer. Of course these are just my
preferences.
Jim Hoak
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey A Beachy" <beachyjeff@juno.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Rivnuts
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Jeffrey A Beachy <beachyjeff@juno.com>
>
> I am considering using rivnuts for the alum tip skin and the root skin to
> allow for access to the strobe power supply and the fuel tank on my
> CH701. Have others done this? If yes, do you recommend it?
>
> Also, I purchased a rivnet tool from Harbor Freight and some rivnuts from
> Aircraft Spruce, but I have not actually used either. Is the technique
> self-explanatory? Drill a hole just larger than the rivnut? Is it a good
> idea to dimple the alum that receives the rivnet in order to allow for
> flush installation?
>
> Jeff Beachy
> CH701
>
>
>
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: Prop pitch and static RPM. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Hi Bob,
Sorry, you are right, will try better. The way we set our prop (the Warp that
comes with the ZAC kit) was as follows.
Our first 701 was the first one in our Club, but I had some experience installing
(and helping) around eight 912 engines, With our altitude (5,000 ft ASL)
we always start with 17deg as a intial setting (Warp Drive manual) then
test the static that should not go over 5,400 (5,300 could be a conservative
reading) then do the first flight, normally the take off full trottle will go
just a little over or very near 5,500 (depending on the plane) never over
5,800 or lower than 5,500.
If the take off is betwen 5,500 and 5,700 we leave it there though all the
test (and pilot knowing the plane) time (at least 10 hrs) from then on just give
the "fine touch" to the Pitch as close to 5,600 - 5.700 as possible. We
never take off with less than 5,500, The drag or speed of the plane is not
important, just keep monitoring the stall and the red line speeds, but with this
both proven props will never be that critical....
We have already about 6 years experience with 912 and 12 + years with the 503
and 582 engines. We have learned that Rotax is a very good engine, but needs
to be carefull about the rpm's and the temperatures (head and exaust in the 2
cycle) to work properly and last as the manua saysl...
We also have a woodcomp in our newer 701, but as this airplane came Ready to
Fly from Chez, and the engine RPM were in target, we did not need to move the
pitch (dont fix what is not broken) so I dont know where the pitch is "read" in
this prop or what initial pitch is good to start (remember reading it in the
Woodcomp manual, but cant remember the numbers). The manuals are not with me
in this moment.
Before I forget VERY IMPORTANT: We always double check the tach accuracy with
a hand held strobe tach... read the prop rpms and multiply by the reduction
number, then compare with the tach reading... Some could come with a sigfnificant
error reading and could be dangerous to overun or not have the power we
think we have.
Hope this helps.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
NYTerminat@aol.com wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: NYTerminat@aol.com
Gary,
I don't seem to be getting an answer to the question of what is the right
setting. If I am thinking correctly the max permitted RPM of the Rotax 912S is
5800 at 5 minutes max and the Woodcomp manual says to set the pitch so that you
get 6% less than max RPM static that makes the correct static RPM 5452. Is
this correct? Would that setting relate to max 5800 RPM in the air?
Thanks for your comments
Bob Spudis
In a message dated 12/19/2005 12:18:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ggower_99@yahoo.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower
Bob,
Is important to set the engine (any engine) to give "safe" full power
RPM's with the handle all the way in... This way when ever you need full power
to take off or to abort a landing, just "let it go" without thinking about
over reving the engine... Is more important to pay atention these few seconds
or couple of minutes to perform a good manover than to watch the rpms to save
the engine. In an emergency landing abort having extra things to care off, can
give as you say in USA: an hands full.
Just my point of view.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
NYTerminat@aol.com wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: NYTerminat@aol.com
In a message dated 12/17/2005 12:46:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net writes:
It can't hurt to set your prop to limit your total power so that you
can't quite reach 100% power output. You can play with the prop
setting after you have established the basic flying characteristics
of your new plane.
Of course, some other people might suggest it is foolish to ever
attempt a takeoff with less than full power. Go figure . ..
Paul
XL wings
Paul are you saying that the 5800 is 100% and that the 5452 static RPM is
correct? To limit full power you can easily not push the throttle all the
way. I
would just assume set the pitch to what it is supposed to be the first time.
Thanks
Bob Spudis
do not archive
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: | 701 Feet on the Floor |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rick R <rick@n701rr.com>
I'm bragging:
From time-to-time we all reach landmarks in our building. One of mine was today.
She went on the gear without a hitch! I'm stoked!
Now, for those of you that have been there, does it ever need to go back on the
bench?
Thanks in advance and
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Rick
Orlando, FL. USA
http://www.n701rr.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: Prop pitch and static RPM |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Hi Johann,
Glad to hear from you, I think that you have to increase the RPM to at least
5,600 in take off, I will look in the Rotax 912 manuals and "AD"s (or what
ever they are called), just to be completly sure, but has something to do with
the "ping" of the engine or something like that. once above 500 ft AGL lower
it to 5400... is just a little "point" over your actual pitch setting mark,
but makes a great diference with your engine performance and longevity.
I know that the 912 is a little overpowered for the 701, but we dont start a
sport car in second gear because is too powerfull, we use the first gear correctly
so the tires dont cry....
Saludos
Gary Gower
"Johann G." <johann@rafpostur.is> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Johann G."
Hello Bob.
My setting is not set according to any precise percentage but I adjusted
it to around 5000 on ground. The max rpm on take off is 5300 rpm.
The plane jumps off the ground with no problem. A long runway is great
for the first flight, but the performance of this plane is so much
better than any other plane you can find so this rpm setting will not be
a problem.
When you have adjusted everything to your satisfaction, just decrease
the pitch setting to run 5300 on ground and you should be fine.
This is my plan.
Merry christmas to you all,
Johann G.
Iceland.
NYTerminat@aol.com wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: NYTerminat@aol.com
>
>Gary,
>I don't seem to be getting an answer to the question of what is the right
>setting. If I am thinking correctly the max permitted RPM of the Rotax 912S is
>5800 at 5 minutes max and the Woodcomp manual says to set the pitch so that you
>get 6% less than max RPM static that makes the correct static RPM 5452. Is
>this correct? Would that setting relate to max 5800 RPM in the air?
>
>Thanks for your comments
>
>Bob Spudis
>
>
>In a message dated 12/19/2005 12:18:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>ggower_99@yahoo.com writes:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower
>
>Bob,
>
> Is important to set the engine (any engine) to give "safe" full power
>RPM's with the handle all the way in... This way when ever you need full power
>to take off or to abort a landing, just "let it go" without thinking about
>over reving the engine... Is more important to pay atention these few seconds
>or couple of minutes to perform a good manover than to watch the rpms to save
>the engine. In an emergency landing abort having extra things to care off, can
>give as you say in USA: an hands full.
>
> Just my point of view.
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower.
>
>
>NYTerminat@aol.com wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: NYTerminat@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 12/17/2005 12:46:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net writes:
>It can't hurt to set your prop to limit your total power so that you
>can't quite reach 100% power output. You can play with the prop
>setting after you have established the basic flying characteristics
>of your new plane.
>
>Of course, some other people might suggest it is foolish to ever
>attempt a takeoff with less than full power. Go figure . ..
>
>Paul
>XL wings
>Paul are you saying that the 5800 is 100% and that the 5452 static RPM is
>correct? To limit full power you can easily not push the throttle all the
>way. I
>would just assume set the pitch to what it is supposed to be the first time.
>Thanks
>
>Bob Spudis
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
>
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: Prop pitch and static RPM. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Yes Cy, You are right, but a good point in our side (Warp Drive and Woodcomp
propellers, for example) is that this props were designed around the 912 engine,
so if your initial setting is close to the manual, is dificult (but not
impossible of course) to be in that dangerous situation. Maybe a little bit
out of the fine seeting point.
Initial Static RPM and Check the accuracy of the tach will give a good first
flight, then just do the final pitch setting later.
Also the ZAC airplanes "help" a lot in the safe side, just keep calm and alert,,,
fight overconficence and thats all. First flights are great...
Saludos
Gary Gower.
cgalley <cgalley@qcbc.org> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "cgalley"
There was a fatal first flight which I believe was due to setting the prop
with too low a pitch. Great acceleration but when the tips went
supersonic, the engine could not turn any faster and the resulting airspeed
that was too low to maintain a stabile flight. Resist the urge, if less
pitch is good for climb, much less is better.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor - EAA TC
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz"
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Prop pitch and static RPM
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
>
>
> Bob,
>
> It appears there is no way to know how static rpm will relate to
> in-flight rpm. It depends on the exact drag of your plane in flight.
>
> You must decide on the first setting of your variable pitch
> propeller. I think the 6% number you have for static rpm should be
> considered as a final maximum setting rather than the setting for
> your first flight. If it were me, I would set it so the static rpm
> was around 10% less than the red line. Then I would watch the rpm on
> takeoff. If it gets even close to the red line while there is still
> enough runway left to stop I would abort the takeoff and increase the
> pitch for the next attempt.
>
> Paul
> XL wings
>
> At 10:59 PM 12/18/2005, you wrote:
>>Gary,
>>I don't seem to be getting an answer to the question of what is the right
>>setting. If I am thinking correctly the max permitted RPM of the
>>Rotax 912S is
>>5800 at 5 minutes max and the Woodcomp manual says to set the pitch
>>so that you
>>get 6% less than max RPM static that makes the correct static RPM 5452. Is
>>this correct? Would that setting relate to max 5800 RPM in the air?
>>
>>Thanks for your comments
>>
>>Bob Spudis
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: 701 Feet on the Floor |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: NYTerminat@aol.com
Rick
Congratulations. DID YOU SIT IN THE PLANE AND MAKE NOISES? I left my main
gear on until I did the painting. I had made a giant rotisserie and spun the
plane around for ease of painting. Other than that you don't need to take it off
again.
Bob Spudis
In a message dated 12/19/2005 4:02:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rick@n701rr.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rick R <rick@n701rr.com>
I'm bragging:
From time-to-time we all reach landmarks in our building. One of mine was
today. She went on the gear without a hitch! I'm stoked!
Now, for those of you that have been there, does it ever need to go back on
the bench?
Thanks in advance and
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Auto engine crankshaft bearings. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Good point,
I am sure that when Don's engine (what ever he decides on Corvair or other)
will reach 500 hours, lots of previously owned engines had "proven " the real
TBO hrs, even if there are only 1,000... I think is a bargain at US$ 1,500.00
!!!
For a week end pilot, 500 hrs are about 10 years... So keep building and flying,
Have as much fun each part of rthe process and
Merry Christmas to all
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Feliz Navidad a Todos!
Robin Bellach <601zv@ritternet.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Robin Bellach" <601zv@ritternet.com>
Don,
I don't think anyone has yet put enoungh hours on a Corvair conversion to
use as any basis to establish a TBO. WW suggests a conservative figure of
1,500 hours, but note that, as he says, "With normal care in operation and
regular oil changes, the engine will easily make this mark. An additional
facet of the economy of Corvair engines is that when overhauled, virtually
every moving component inside this engine can be replaced or rebuilt for
less than $1,500. This dollar per hour engine life cycle cost cannot be
matched by any other engine in its class. A number of imported engines
cannot even come within eight times this cost." How does that compare to the
overhaul cost of a Lycosauarus?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Mountain"
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Auto engine crankshaft bearings
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain
>
> Hello Tracy,
>
> As a new builder that is unfamiler with the auto engine conversions
being built and sold for experimentals, of which I am considering
installing, I am basically looking for some real data to make comparisons
for cost-benefit analysis. And when I ask for real data on some of these
subjects, I seem to get a lot of by gosh and by golly "I knew a guy who
flew one for 10,000 hours without changing his spark plugs" kind of
response. If I were to invest the money and time required to build and
install a functional Corvair engine in my 601XL, what is the practical time
limit for this engine? And what are the failure modes of this engine?
When I have 2000 hours on it, what wear limits should I be checking? My
experience in owning a Piper Cherokee and my brother flying pipeline
inspections with his Cessna show the TBO's are just an intermediate
indication of wear on the Lycoming engines. He has over 3500 hours on his
now, and runs it at the firewall all day flyin
> g
> inspections. If the Corvair's initial cost is half as much, but lasts
only half the time, then you lose with the Corvair since you have the added
expense of the intermediate tear down and rebuild.
>
> Don
> 601 XL, tail done, working on wings
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Crvsecretary@aol.com
>
> >I like the direction of your questions,
> >but I have to ask you one more......
> >..why don't the results speak for themselves?
> >Take the Corvair, for instance. What is the
> >profit motive for anyone to take one of these
> >engines down to measure bearing wear after
> >an undetermined amount of time? The only
> >person who would have a need to gather
> >this data is William Wynne, and if HE has
> >not seen the need, does the need exist?
> >Remembr, there are a lot of auto engines
> >that exist, but only a few successfully
> >transition into aero conversion applications.
> >That's why they call this branch of aviation
> >'experimental'.
> >One more thing, and I'm not throwing stones,
> >but most of the large displacement
> >turbocharged Lycomings NEVER see TBO.
> >This data IS available, but, does it really
> >matter? If you own one, you KNOW 2000
> >hours is between highly unlikely and fantasy.
> >Does this stop people from flying them? No.
> >Thanks for the lively thread.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Tracy Smith
> >Naugatuck, CT
> >601xl N458XL (reserved)
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: | Re: Prop pitch and static RPM. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: NYTerminat@aol.com
Gary
What you just said makes perfect sense. I felt that it should be close to the
6% from max RPM as you are right that these props are built around the 912.
The Woodcomp pitch is measured 2" from the tip. How right you are on the tach.
Mine is way off and that is my project for today. I used the optical tach to
verify accuracy. Thanks for all your input, sure wish I was in your territory
at this time of the year, it's cold and snowing today.
Merry Christmas
Bob
In a message dated 12/19/2005 3:53:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
ggower_99@yahoo.com writes:
Hi Bob,
Sorry, you are right, will try better. The way we set our prop (the Warp
that comes with the ZAC kit) was as follows.
Our first 701 was the first one in our Club, but I had some experience
installing (and helping) around eight 912 engines, With our altitude (5,000 ft
ASL)
we always start with 17deg as a intial setting (Warp Drive manual) then
test the static that should not go over 5,400 (5,300 could be a conservative
reading) then do the first flight, normally the take off full trottle will
go just a little over or very near 5,500 (depending on the plane) never over
5,800 or lower than 5,500.
If the take off is betwen 5,500 and 5,700 we leave it there though all the
test (and pilot knowing the plane) time (at least 10 hrs) from then on just
give the "fine touch" to the Pitch as close to 5,600 - 5.700 as possible. We
never take off with less than 5,500, The drag or speed of the plane is not
important, just keep monitoring the stall and the red line speeds, but with
this both proven props will never be that critical....
We have already about 6 years experience with 912 and 12 + years with the 503
and 582 engines. We have learned that Rotax is a very good engine, but needs
to be carefull about the rpm's and the temperatures (head and exaust in the 2
cycle) to work properly and last as the manua saysl...
We also have a woodcomp in our newer 701, but as this airplane came Ready to
Fly from Chez, and the engine RPM were in target, we did not need to move the
pitch (dont fix what is not broken) so I dont know where the pitch is "read"
in this prop or what initial pitch is good to start (remember reading it in the
Woodcomp manual, but cant remember the numbers). The manuals are not with me
in this moment.
Before I forget VERY IMPORTANT: We always double check the tach accuracy
with a hand held strobe tach... read the prop rpms and multiply by the reduction
number, then compare with the tach reading... Some could come with a
sigfnificant error reading and could be dangerous to overun or not have the power
we
think we have.
Hope this helps.
Saludos
Gary
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: | 701 Feet on the Floor |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Hines" <John.Hines@craftontull.com>
I sit in my recliner and make noises! Does that count?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
NYTerminat@aol.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 Feet on the Floor
--> Zenith-List message posted by: NYTerminat@aol.com
Rick
Congratulations. DID YOU SIT IN THE PLANE AND MAKE NOISES? I left my
main
gear on until I did the painting. I had made a giant rotisserie and spun
the
plane around for ease of painting. Other than that you don't need to
take it off
again.
Bob Spudis
In a message dated 12/19/2005 4:02:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rick@n701rr.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rick R <rick@n701rr.com>
I'm bragging:
From time-to-time we all reach landmarks in our building. One of mine
was
today. She went on the gear without a hitch! I'm stoked!
Now, for those of you that have been there, does it ever need to go back
on
the bench?
Thanks in advance and
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: 701 Feet on the Floor |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jon Croke" <jon@joncroke.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick R" <rick@n701rr.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: 701 Feet on the Floor
>
> Now, for those of you that have been there, does it ever need to go back
> on the bench?
>
O h yes,.... land the plane into a forest of trees and you'll spend time
with it back on the bench again!
do not archive
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: Auto engine crankshaft bearings. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL <nfivesl@yahoo.com>
Feliz Navidad Gary:
The $1,500 figure is bogus chat room banter. I have a
pile of receipts in front of me that says otherwise.
Triple that figure if you want to leave chat room
fiction and build an airworthy engine. Still a bargain
in the real world.
Happy Building,
Scott Laughlin
601XL / Corvair
www.cooknwithgas.com
DO NOT ARCHIVE
--- Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower
> <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
>
> Good point,
>
> I am sure that when Don's engine (what ever he
> decides on Corvair or other) will reach 500 hours,
> lots of previously owned engines had "proven " the
> real TBO hrs, even if there are only 1,000... I
> think is a bargain at US$ 1,500.00 !!!
>
> For a week end pilot, 500 hrs are about 10
> years... So keep building and flying, Have as
> much fun each part of rthe process and
>
> Merry Christmas to all
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower.
> Feliz Navidad a Todos!
>
> Robin Bellach <601zv@ritternet.com> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Robin Bellach"
> <601zv@ritternet.com>
>
> Don,
> I don't think anyone has yet put enoungh hours on a
> Corvair conversion to
> use as any basis to establish a TBO. WW suggests a
> conservative figure of
> 1,500 hours, but note that, as he says, "With normal
> care in operation and
> regular oil changes, the engine will easily make
> this mark. An additional
> facet of the economy of Corvair engines is that when
> overhauled, virtually
> every moving component inside this engine can be
> replaced or rebuilt for
> less than $1,500. This dollar per hour engine life
> cycle cost cannot be
> matched by any other engine in its class. A number
> of imported engines
> cannot even come within eight times this cost." How
> does that compare to the
> overhaul cost of a Lycosauarus?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Mountain"
> To:
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Auto engine crankshaft
> bearings
>
>
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain
> >
> > Hello Tracy,
> >
> > As a new builder that is unfamiler with the auto
> engine conversions
> being built and sold for experimentals, of which I
> am considering
> installing, I am basically looking for some real
> data to make comparisons
> for cost-benefit analysis. And when I ask for real
> data on some of these
> subjects, I seem to get a lot of by gosh and by
> golly "I knew a guy who
> flew one for 10,000 hours without changing his spark
> plugs" kind of
> response. If I were to invest the money and time
> required to build and
> install a functional Corvair engine in my 601XL,
> what is the practical time
> limit for this engine? And what are the failure
> modes of this engine?
> When I have 2000 hours on it, what wear limits
> should I be checking? My
> experience in owning a Piper Cherokee and my brother
> flying pipeline
> inspections with his Cessna show the TBO's are just
> an intermediate
> indication of wear on the Lycoming engines. He has
> over 3500 hours on his
> now, and runs it at the firewall all day flyin
> > g
> > inspections. If the Corvair's initial cost is half
> as much, but lasts
> only half the time, then you lose with the Corvair
> since you have the added
> expense of the intermediate tear down and rebuild.
> >
> > Don
> > 601 XL, tail done, working on wings
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by:
> Crvsecretary@aol.com
> >
> > >I like the direction of your questions,
> > >but I have to ask you one more......
> > >..why don't the results speak for themselves?
> > >Take the Corvair, for instance. What is the
> > >profit motive for anyone to take one of these
> > >engines down to measure bearing wear after
> > >an undetermined amount of time? The only
> > >person who would have a need to gather
> > >this data is William Wynne, and if HE has
> > >not seen the need, does the need exist?
> > >Remembr, there are a lot of auto engines
> > >that exist, but only a few successfully
> > >transition into aero conversion applications.
> > >That's why they call this branch of aviation
> > >'experimental'.
> > >One more thing, and I'm not throwing stones,
> > >but most of the large displacement
> > >turbocharged Lycomings NEVER see TBO.
> > >This data IS available, but, does it really
> > >matter? If you own one, you KNOW 2000
> > >hours is between highly unlikely and fantasy.
> > >Does this stop people from flying them? No.
> > >Thanks for the lively thread.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Tracy Smith
> > >Naugatuck, CT
> > >601xl N458XL (reserved)
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Corvair Engine Rebuild |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Clyde Barcus" <barcusc@comcast.net>
I am trying to build a first class Corvair Conversion, William Wynne conversion
parts (most, not all) All internal components from Clark's and I will have approximately
$5,250 in my engine. Should this engine need rebuilt in my flying
career I would expect (No Consideration for inflation) the following:
Rod Bearings $69.20
Main Bearings $98.15
Gasket Set $92.40
Copper Head Gaskets $17.75
Chrome Rings $90 85
Lifters $45.80
Valve Job (Labor) $100.00
Jugs Bored (Exchange) $240.00
Total $754.15
All Prices From Clarks Corvair
Should the engine be in terrible shape add the following:
SETS
Pistons $315.00
Reconditioned Rods $236.20
Intake Valves $30.60
Exhaust Valves $53.70
Valve Springs $52.85
Total $688.15
Above Total $754.15
New Total $1442.30
I am sure I missed something but that will give you a good idea what a rebuild
would cost, another point, I have owned a few cars from the sixty's that had over
100,000 miles, divide that by 50 miles an hour equals 2000 hours. Surely,
a well maintained engine would reach a TBO of 1500 hours, unproven, but a reasonable
expectation.
Clyde Barcus
601XL
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: Sharpies - Ink Flow |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave VanLanen" <davevanlanen@sbcglobal.net>
Thanks to everyone for their responses to my question.
Dave
From: Dave VanLanen [mailto:davevanlanen@sbcglobal.net]
Subject: Sharpies - Ink Flow
Does anyone have trouble with the ink flow stopping on an otherwise good
Sharpie? Is there a tried and true method for getting it going again?
Thanks,
Dave Van Lanen
Do not archive
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 |
|
"rocket-list" <rocket-list@matronics.com>,
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210;INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
My son (wife & two grandsons) is now living in Everett, Washington. I'm
looking for a source in that area for him to continue with flight training.
He has not flown except with me or Tom in the Rocket in 8-10 years. I'm
going up there for Christmas & think flight training/ground school etc would
make a great Christmas gift. Need input from someone in that area.
KABONG HRII N561FS
MERRY CHRISTMAS.
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: 701 Feet on the Floor. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Hello Jon,
Merry Christmas!
Glad to hear from you, How is the rebuilding going?
Cant find your web page in my favorites since some weeks ago, just had my disk
"cleaned" and "serviced" but lost some info (most backed up) in the process,
had to change from W 78 to XP. Well, not Zenith sorry.
Merry Christmas to all!
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Do not archive.
Jon Croke <jon@joncroke.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jon Croke"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick R"
Subject: Zenith-List: 701 Feet on the Floor
>
> Now, for those of you that have been there, does it ever need to go back
> on the bench?
>
O h yes,.... land the plane into a forest of trees and you'll spend time
with it back on the bench again!
do not archive
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: Auto engine crankshaft bearings, |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Yes is understanding, but even double the amount will be a good deal, in betwen
those 1,000 hrs maybe a couple of $300.00 head rebuilts for the Corvair and
thats all, well plugs, oil, etc.
My point is that a well done conversion is the only way for some guys to fly
in a tight budget.
I remeber about 5 years ago, an Old Timer homebuilder pilot, in a Sun and Fun
forum that just finished, once comment to the group (I was there) :
"There are a lots of great planes (to build), the problem is to find a good inexpensive
engine to match..." Wise words.
Saludos
Gary Gower
N5SL <nfivesl@yahoo.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL
Feliz Navidad Gary:
The $1,500 figure is bogus chat room banter. I have a
pile of receipts in front of me that says otherwise.
Triple that figure if you want to leave chat room
fiction and build an airworthy engine. Still a bargain
in the real world.
Happy Building,
Scott Laughlin
601XL / Corvair
www.cooknwithgas.com
DO NOT ARCHIVE
--- Gary Gower wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower
>
>
> Good point,
>
> I am sure that when Don's engine (what ever he
> decides on Corvair or other) will reach 500 hours,
> lots of previously owned engines had "proven " the
> real TBO hrs, even if there are only 1,000... I
> think is a bargain at US$ 1,500.00 !!!
>
> For a week end pilot, 500 hrs are about 10
> years... So keep building and flying, Have as
> much fun each part of rthe process and
>
> Merry Christmas to all
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower.
> Feliz Navidad a Todos!
>
> Robin Bellach <601zv@ritternet.com> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Robin Bellach"
> <601zv@ritternet.com>
>
> Don,
> I don't think anyone has yet put enoungh hours on a
> Corvair conversion to
> use as any basis to establish a TBO. WW suggests a
> conservative figure of
> 1,500 hours, but note that, as he says, "With normal
> care in operation and
> regular oil changes, the engine will easily make
> this mark. An additional
> facet of the economy of Corvair engines is that when
> overhauled, virtually
> every moving component inside this engine can be
> replaced or rebuilt for
> less than $1,500. This dollar per hour engine life
> cycle cost cannot be
> matched by any other engine in its class. A number
> of imported engines
> cannot even come within eight times this cost." How
> does that compare to the
> overhaul cost of a Lycosauarus?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Mountain"
> To:
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Auto engine crankshaft
> bearings
>
>
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain
> >
> > Hello Tracy,
> >
> > As a new builder that is unfamiler with the auto
> engine conversions
> being built and sold for experimentals, of which I
> am considering
> installing, I am basically looking for some real
> data to make comparisons
> for cost-benefit analysis. And when I ask for real
> data on some of these
> subjects, I seem to get a lot of by gosh and by
> golly "I knew a guy who
> flew one for 10,000 hours without changing his spark
> plugs" kind of
> response. If I were to invest the money and time
> required to build and
> install a functional Corvair engine in my 601XL,
> what is the practical time
> limit for this engine? And what are the failure
> modes of this engine?
> When I have 2000 hours on it, what wear limits
> should I be checking? My
> experience in owning a Piper Cherokee and my brother
> flying pipeline
> inspections with his Cessna show the TBO's are just
> an intermediate
> indication of wear on the Lycoming engines. He has
> over 3500 hours on his
> now, and runs it at the firewall all day flyin
> > g
> > inspections. If the Corvair's initial cost is half
> as much, but lasts
> only half the time, then you lose with the Corvair
> since you have the added
> expense of the intermediate tear down and rebuild.
> >
> > Don
> > 601 XL, tail done, working on wings
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by:
> Crvsecretary@aol.com
> >
> > >I like the direction of your questions,
> > >but I have to ask you one more......
> > >..why don't the results speak for themselves?
> > >Take the Corvair, for instance. What is the
> > >profit motive for anyone to take one of these
> > >engines down to measure bearing wear after
> > >an undetermined amount of time? The only
> > >person who would have a need to gather
> > >this data is William Wynne, and if HE has
> > >not seen the need, does the need exist?
> > >Remembr, there are a lot of auto engines
> > >that exist, but only a few successfully
> > >transition into aero conversion applications.
> > >That's why they call this branch of aviation
> > >'experimental'.
> > >One more thing, and I'm not throwing stones,
> > >but most of the large displacement
> > >turbocharged Lycomings NEVER see TBO.
> > >This data IS available, but, does it really
> > >matter? If you own one, you KNOW 2000
> > >hours is between highly unlikely and fantasy.
> > >Does this stop people from flying them? No.
> > >Thanks for the lively thread.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Tracy Smith
> > >Naugatuck, CT
> > >601xl N458XL (reserved)
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
> Admin.
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 Rebuild, |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Hi Clyde,
I think that 1,500 hrs will be a little optimistic, given that at every take
off, we have to get full power from the engine (engine is a little derrated,
I know, but full power), could be like lending the family sports car to your
teen, once or twice a week ;-)
So getting 1,000 hours from a Corvair WW Conversion, will be excelent for me,
15+ years of flying!!...
This is a kind of out of ZAC planes, but will be short:
In this last couple of years I have noted that cars have become lighter and have
more power, more engines are made of aluminun (lighter front wheel driven
cars)... this could be good news for future conversions... The only thing I
dont like much is so many valves! and the use of timing belts... But time (soon)
will tell.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
So not archive
Clyde Barcus <barcusc@comcast.net> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Clyde Barcus"
I am trying to build a first class Corvair Conversion, William Wynne conversion
parts (most, not all) All internal components from Clark's and I will have approximately
$5,250 in my engine. Should this engine need rebuilt in my flying
career I would expect (No Consideration for inflation) the following:
Rod Bearings $69.20
Main Bearings $98.15
Gasket Set $92.40
Copper Head Gaskets $17.75
Chrome Rings $90 85
Lifters $45.80
Valve Job (Labor) $100.00
Jugs Bored (Exchange) $240.00
Total $754.15
All Prices From Clarks Corvair
Should the engine be in terrible shape add the following:
SETS
Pistons $315.00
Reconditioned Rods $236.20
Intake Valves $30.60
Exhaust Valves $53.70
Valve Springs $52.85
Total $688.15
Above Total $754.15
New Total $1442.30
I am sure I missed something but that will give you a good idea what a rebuild
would cost, another point, I have owned a few cars from the sixty's that had over
100,000 miles, divide that by 50 miles an hour equals 2000 hours. Surely,
a well maintained engine would reach a TBO of 1500 hours, unproven, but a reasonable
expectation.
Clyde Barcus
601XL
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "George Swinford" <grs-pms@comcast.net>
John:
Is your son connected to Boeing in any way? If so, the Boeing Employees
Flying Association is the best deal going.
George
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
<rocket-list@matronics.com>; "INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210"
<zenith-list@matronics.com>; <INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210>
Subject: Zenith-List: Need input
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
>
> My son (wife & two grandsons) is now living in Everett, Washington. I'm
> looking for a source in that area for him to continue with flight
training.
> He has not flown except with me or Tom in the Rocket in 8-10 years. I'm
> going up there for Christmas & think flight training/ground school etc
would
> make a great Christmas gift. Need input from someone in that area.
> KABONG HRII N561FS
> MERRY CHRISTMAS.
>
>
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
No, he has been "back" in school for the past year. He's a computer wiz but
didn't get his degree in his twenties (not that I didn't try to talk him
into it), so now in his forties he's back on the books. Grandsons are 19 &
14 so now he went back & talks about flying again. KABONG Do Not Archive
MERRY CHRISTMAS
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Swinford" <grs-pms@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Need input
> Is your son connected to Boeing in any way? If so, the Boeing Employees
> Flying Association is the best deal going.
>
> George
> From: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
>
>
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
>>
>> My son (wife & two grandsons) is now living in Everett, Washington. I'm
>> looking for a source in that area for him to continue with flight
> training.
>> He has not flown except with me or Tom in the Rocket in 8-10 years. I'm
>> going up there for Christmas & think flight training/ground school etc
> would
>> make a great Christmas gift. Need input from someone in that area.
>> KABONG HRII N561FS
>> MERRY CHRISTMAS.
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! --
|