Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:20 AM - Re: Zenith-List Digest: 33 Msgs - 12/19/05 (Gig Giacona)
2. 06:38 AM - Corvair crank (Bob Gibfried)
3. 08:07 AM - Corvair Crank Failure (Rick Lindstrom)
4. 08:12 AM - Re: Corvair crank (B Johnson)
5. 08:34 AM - Re: Corvair crank (N5SL)
6. 08:35 AM - Re: Jabiru engines and low oil pressures concerns in Great (Monty Graves)
7. 08:45 AM - Re: Corvair crank (Robin Bellach)
8. 09:12 AM - Re: Auto conversion - Jab bearings (T. Graziano)
9. 09:35 AM - Re: Corvair crank (Craig Payne)
10. 09:45 AM - Re: Corvair crank (kevinbonds)
11. 10:38 AM - Re: Auto engine crankshaft bearings (David Winsett)
12. 11:39 AM - Re: Corvair crank (Don Mountain)
13. 12:01 PM - Re: Corvair crank (Craig Payne)
14. 12:07 PM - Re: Re: Corvair crank (brucelee@mn.rr.com)
15. 12:21 PM - Re: Corvair crank (kevinbonds)
16. 12:47 PM - Re: Re: Corvair crank (N5SL)
17. 01:40 PM - Re: Re: Corvair crank (kevinbonds)
18. 01:41 PM - Re: Re: Corvair crank (Paul Mulwitz)
19. 01:50 PM - Re: Re: Corvair crank (Craig Payne)
20. 04:49 PM - Battery location (John anderson)
21. 06:20 PM - Re: Battery location (Paul Mulwitz)
22. 06:30 PM - Re: Corvair crank. (Gary Gower)
23. 08:06 PM - Fuel system rework (Larry)
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 |
|
"Zenith-List Digest List" <zenith-list-digest@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List Digest: 33 Msgs - 12/19/05 |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0001 1.0000 -2.0206
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" <wr.giacona@cox.net>
Don, if you haven't done so already visit www.flycorvair.com. William Wynne
is the guy as far as Covair conversions go. I believe he says 1500 TBO on
his conversion. You can by a completed, zero time engine from him for less
than $7000. That is a third of what a Lyc or Cont will cost you. If you want
to actually build the engine yourself there are people out there that have
less than $3000 in their Corvairs.
You raise excellent cost benefit questions. It looks to me that all things
being equal I can have WW build me an engine and buy a new one 1500 hours
later and still get off MUCH cheaper than buying a Lyc or Cont.
Gig G
>
> Time: 06:34:29 AM 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>
>
> 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
>
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842@cox.net>
Was told about it third hand that one of William's Corvair engines snapped a
crank during its first few hours of flight. Engine was in a KR2S with a
prop spacer which may or may not have anything to do with it.
Anyone else know of the incident? I know that this is not an unusual
problem with the Volks conversion.
Bob, Wichita
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: | Corvair Crank Failure |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Hi, Bob.
Yep, the Corvairs are not immune from an out of balance prop mass
hanging far out at the end of a long prop extension.
I've talked to WW about this at some length, and it's highly advised to
use a prop extension that's properly machined and balanced, and to not
exceed the recommended length from the hub. And having the prop
dynamically balanced wouldn't hurt, either.
To my knowledge, the very few cases (2?) of broken cranks on Corvairs
can be traced to out of balance masses too far away from the hub.
Best,
Rick Lindstrom, Contributing Editor
KITPLANES Magazine
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "B Johnson" <bjohnson@satx.rr.com>
This was not one of William's engines... it was one where the builder was
following SOME of William's recommendations.... this has been attributed
mostly to a 33% longer prop hub among other things (like prop flutter...).
You can read the builders observations here:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/flexplate/problem.html
- Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Gibfried
Subject: Zenith-List: Corvair crank
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842@cox.net>
Was told about it third hand that one of William's Corvair engines snapped a
crank during its first few hours of flight. Engine was in a KR2S with a
prop spacer which may or may not have anything to do with it.
Anyone else know of the incident? I know that this is not an unusual
problem with the Volks conversion.
Bob, Wichita
--
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 crank |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL <nfivesl@yahoo.com>
Bob:
You can read all about it from William's Crankshaft
update here:
http://www.flycorvair.com/crankissues.html
Enjoy,
Scott Laughlin
www.cooknwithgas.com
601XL / Corvair
Wrapping up engine installation.
--- Bob Gibfried <rfg842@cox.net> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Gibfried"
> <rfg842@cox.net>
>
> Was told about it third hand that one of William's
> Corvair engines snapped a
> crank during its first few hours of flight. Engine
> was in a KR2S with a
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: Jabiru engines and low oil pressures concerns in Great |
Britain.
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Monty Graves <mgraves@usmo.com> Britain.
This was posted to another mailing list I belong too. Might give the
Jabiru guys a heads up on watching for low/lower oil pressures in new
engine installations.
I am just passing along info I think might be of interest to some
folks.. And don't have other info.
Monty
+++++++++++++++
Quote:
>From: "Jon Kilpatrick" <c200jk@yahoo.com>
>X-Yahoo-Profile: c200jk
>Sender: Small4-strokeEngines@yahoogroups.com
>Mailing-List: list Small4-strokeEngines@yahoogroups.com; contact
>Small4-strokeEngines-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>Low oil pressure in NEW engines...
>some are fine others have low oil pressure...
>One engine failed at 110 hrs, again at 220 hours and now it has
>failed with just over 300 hours... it is in a school aircraft.
>we generally don't run oil coolers here at all..... the engines that
>run with high oil pressure are fine and work OK.... the company
>simply states that the "pressure is within operational limits"...
>take whatever you want from that.... when it blow up they don't want
>to know.
>It has tarnished Jabiru's reputation here greatly.... in fact to
>such a level that we will be fitting the Rotax 912/912's to our new
>range here when we get it through the Section S regulations in the
>UK.
>
>Jon
>****************************************************************
>
>--- In Small4-strokeEngines@yahoogroups.com, "eric626m"
><eric626m@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the input on the ULpower engine.
> > For the Jabirus losing oil pressure, are these engines related in
> > having high time? Or does it show up regardless of use.
> >
> > Also, is it typical to not run an additional oil cooler in
> > UK/Ireland? Or do you mean that the supplied (small) oil cooler
>is
> > being replaced with something more substantial.
> >
> > The Sonex company has a different oil cooler that they recommend -
>
> > to the extent that they have developed baffles specific to it
>which
> > they provide with the Jabirus that they sell.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eric
>
>
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM
>
>
>### Lets use this list to build a knowledge base for those who are
>interested in flying with these engines. Don't forget you can search the
>messages archive for past discussions. Please keep comments on subject.
>Sorry, no attachments allowed.
>
>For access to the home page:
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Small4-strokeEngines/<
>
>For direct access to the files area:
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Small4-strokeEngines/files/<
>
><*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Small4-strokeEngines/
>
><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Small4-strokeEngines-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
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 crank |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Robin Bellach" <601zv@ritternet.com>
I think if you do a bit if reseach you will find no confirmed instances of
crank failures in a direct drive Corvair conversion done by WW or done to
his specifications. There have been several recent crank failures but all
have been in engines not done according to WW's criteria, and done is such a
way as to impose extra loads on the cranks. For details on crank failures
see: http://flycorvair.com/crankissues.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842@cox.net>
To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:39 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Corvair crank
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842@cox.net>
>
> Was told about it third hand that one of William's Corvair engines
snapped a
> crank during its first few hours of flight. Engine was in a KR2S with a
> prop spacer which may or may not have anything to do with it.
>
> Anyone else know of the incident? I know that this is not an unusual
> problem with the Volks conversion.
>
> Bob, Wichita
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 conversion - Jab bearings |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "T. Graziano" <tonyplane@bellsouth.net>
Looking at a cross section dwg of the Jabiru 3300A, there are eight (8)
bearing journals supporting the 4140 chrome moly crank shaft.. At the
"prop" end, two of the journals have shaft bearings and also have thrust
bearings to react the fore and aft loads. Per the maintenance manual, the
main bearing journals are nominal 48 mm dia and the crank thrust faces are
nominal 57mm dia.. Width of the crankcase crankshaft bearing support
journals I guess at about 25 mm. (25.4mm = 1 inch).
Tony Graziano
601XL, N493TG with smooth purring Jab3300A
Time: 03:01:16 PM PST US
From: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Auto conversiona
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Unternaehrer" <shilocom@mcmsys.com>
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 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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
If you ask this on the Corvaircraft list you will hear about all three
cranks breaks and why their engines were different then the standard William
Wynne conversion.
http://www.corvaircraft.com/
You can read William's take on the broken cranks at:
http://www.flycorvair.com/crankissues.html
While the whole issue of the breaks was being discussed on the e-mail list
someone posted *two* recalls from Lycoming for broken cranks.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Gibfried
Subject: Zenith-List: Corvair crank
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842@cox.net>
Was told about it third hand that one of William's Corvair engines snapped a
crank during its first few hours of flight. Engine was in a KR2S with a
prop spacer which may or may not have anything to do with it.
Anyone else know of the incident? I know that this is not an unusual
problem with the Volks conversion.
Bob, Wichita
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: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
Yes, Mark Langford's site is the best source on this issue. But for those
that won't bother to read it let me sum up some of the issues for you.
Just about all engines (including Lycoming and Jabiru) have had crank
breakages. The Corvair is not alone in that regard. There have been 3 crank
failures in corvaircraft since the 1960's. All recent, and all had long prop
extensions on KR2's. They were trying to maintain the stock KR2 cowl shape
by using extensions.
There was a very long and heated thread debate on the Corvaircraft list
about how a prop extension theoretically would not increase bending loads
(most guys in this camp were not building engines BTW but were advocating
something dangerous that they were not willing to test themselves).
Anyway, Mark's engine was a big bore 3100cc (15% higher combustion load) and
he was using a hand-carved prop (read non-asymmetrical) as well as running
at higher rpm than is normal. As well his prop was not indexed properly.
Indeed Mark admitted that he noticed a rather scary prop flutter when
throttling down that he compensated for by pulling the throttle more
quickly. Also important is that you run a somewhat lightweight prop and
index it to the #6 rod journal properly. These things all added up for him
while out flying. Luckily he was cautious enough to be flying around at
sufficient altitude to be able to find a safe place to land. That is a
distinction some people don't make. Mark is an Experimenter who knows his
limits.
BTW the other failures were, I believe, attributed to things like improper
fillet radiusing during grinding.
William Wynne has always cautioned against these problems and has lately
surmised, with the help of guys like Mark, that crank nitriding is a good
idea especially in the big-bores. Nitriding to .015 gives a fatigue strength
increase of about 50%. Seeing as many hundreds of hours have been flown on
properly built 2700cc engines without it, nitriding the crank should add a
measure of insurance not necessarily a necessity.
Basically the Corvair Engine is no more or less experimental than anything
else we are dealing with here. It has its limits, but so do our airframes.
We just learn what they are and operate within them.
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Johnson
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "B Johnson" <bjohnson@satx.rr.com>
This was not one of William's engines... it was one where the builder was
following SOME of William's recommendations.... this has been attributed
mostly to a 33% longer prop hub among other things (like prop flutter...).
You can read the builders observations here:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/flexplate/problem.html
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 engine crankshaft bearings |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: David Winsett <davidwinsett@yahoo.com>
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Contact!
magazine (www.contactmagazine.com/). This is the place
for answers when discussing alternate power plants for
experimental aviation.
dave
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
Its nice that you can throw in a statement like you did Craig about the Lycoming
crankshafts to try to minimize the effects to the readers on the appearance
of three Corvair engine crank failures. Comparing the three crank failures,
and how many other Corvair engines I have heard of that seemed to have a very
premature mode of failure, on roughly 400 Corvair engines flying really indicates
a large percentage of failure. On the other hand, the few failures
of Lycoming and Contenental engines out of probably close to a million flying
and more than several million successful flying hours may put the Corvair in
a bad light.
Don
>If you ask this on the Corvaircraft list
>you will hear about all three cranks
>breaks and why their engines were
>different then the standard William
>Wynne conversion.
>
>While the whole issue of the breaks
> was being discussed on the e-mail list
>someone posted *two* recalls from
>Lycoming for broken cranks.
>
>-- Craig
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
I'm risking my life by flying behind a Corvair. Obviously I have made my
choice. Also you need to flame Kevin as he said:
"Just about all engines (including Lycoming and Jabiru) have had crank
breakages. The Corvair is not alone in that regard. There have been 3 crank
failures in corvaircraft since the 1960's."
After you have chosen an engine come on back so we can rip you a new asshole
for you choice.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Mountain
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
Its nice that you can throw in a statement like you did Craig about the
Lycoming crankshafts to try to minimize the effects to the readers on the
appearance of three Corvair engine crank failures. Comparing the three
crank failures, and how many other Corvair engines I have heard of that
seemed to have a very premature mode of failure, on roughly 400 Corvair
engines flying really indicates a large percentage of failure. On the
other hand, the few failures of Lycoming and Contenental engines out of
probably close to a million flying and more than several million successful
flying hours may put the Corvair in a bad light.
Don
>If you ask this on the Corvaircraft list
>you will hear about all three cranks
>breaks and why their engines were
>different then the standard William
>Wynne conversion.
>
>While the whole issue of the breaks
> was being discussed on the e-mail list
>someone posted *two* recalls from
>Lycoming for broken cranks.
>
>-- Craig
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 crank |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: brucelee@mn.rr.com
I've promised to keep my posts noninflammatory whenever possible but,
am I missing somthing? Why don't more builders use the o-200
Continental? Yes, it costs somewhat more than a Corvair, but it's
usually cheaper than a Lycoming. It's a "real airplane engine", it has
redundant ignition, you can have a lightweight alternator without
worrying about a belt, and by changing the cam and adding tuned
exhaust, you can easily surpass 110hp. To me, it just seems like a
natural fit for the 601XL.
Bruce Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Mountain <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain
> <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
> Its nice that you can throw in a statement like you did Craig
> about the Lycoming crankshafts to try to minimize the effects to
> the readers on the appearance of three Corvair engine crank
> failures. Comparing the three crank failures, and how many other
> Corvair engines I have heard of that seemed to have a very
> premature mode of failure, on roughly 400 Corvair engines flying
> really indicates a large percentage of failure. On the other
> hand, the few failures of Lycoming and Contenental engines out of
> probably close to a million flying and more than several million
> successful flying hours may put the Corvair in a bad light.
>
> Don
>
> >If you ask this on the Corvaircraft list
> >you will hear about all three cranks
> >breaks and why their engines were
> >different then the standard William
> >Wynne conversion.
> >
> >While the whole issue of the breaks
> > was being discussed on the e-mail list
> >someone posted *two* recalls from
> >Lycoming for broken cranks.
> >
> >-- Craig
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
Thanks Craig for tossing some of that my way ;). Well . . . I guess I asked
for it. Also I guess I should have pointed out that Mark Langford is far
from being grounded because of his crank breakage, he's flying behind
another Corvair and is building a third. I guess some guys never learn ;).
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
I'm risking my life by flying behind a Corvair. Obviously I have made my
choice. Also you need to flame Kevin as he said:
"Just about all engines (including Lycoming and Jabiru) have had crank
breakages. The Corvair is not alone in that regard. There have been 3 crank
failures in corvaircraft since the 1960's."
After you have chosen an engine come on back so we can rip you a new asshole
for you choice.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Mountain
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
Its nice that you can throw in a statement like you did Craig about the
Lycoming crankshafts to try to minimize the effects to the readers on the
appearance of three Corvair engine crank failures. Comparing the three
crank failures, and how many other Corvair engines I have heard of that
seemed to have a very premature mode of failure, on roughly 400 Corvair
engines flying really indicates a large percentage of failure. On the
other hand, the few failures of Lycoming and Contenental engines out of
probably close to a million flying and more than several million successful
flying hours may put the Corvair in a bad light.
Don
>If you ask this on the Corvaircraft list
>you will hear about all three cranks
>breaks and why their engines were
>different then the standard William
>Wynne conversion.
>
>While the whole issue of the breaks
> was being discussed on the e-mail list
>someone posted *two* recalls from
>Lycoming for broken cranks.
>
>-- Craig
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 crank |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL <nfivesl@yahoo.com>
Bruce:
So buy one, rebuild it, build an airplane and install
it then let us know how that goes. That way you will
have less time to surf the internet and sent
inflammatory emails. See ya in three years.
Scott Laughlin
601XL / Corvair.
--- brucelee@mn.rr.com wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by:
> brucelee@mn.rr.com
>
> I've promised to keep my posts noninflammatory
> whenever possible but,
> am I missing somthing? Why don't more builders use
> the o-200
> Continental? Yes, it costs somewhat more than a
> Corvair, but it's
> usually cheaper than a Lycoming. It's a "real
> airplane engine", it has
> redundant ignition, you can have a lightweight
> alternator without
> worrying about a belt, and by changing the cam and
> adding tuned
> exhaust, you can easily surpass 110hp. To me, it
> just seems like a
> natural fit for the 601XL.
> Bruce Lee
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Mountain <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:38 pm
> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank
>
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain
> > <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
> > Its nice that you can throw in a statement like
> you did Craig
> > about the Lycoming crankshafts to try to minimize
> the effects to
> > the readers on the appearance of three Corvair
> engine crank
> > failures. Comparing the three crank failures, and
> how many other
> > Corvair engines I have heard of that seemed to
> have a very
> > premature mode of failure, on roughly 400 Corvair
> engines flying
> > really indicates a large percentage of failure.
> On the other
> > hand, the few failures of Lycoming and
> Contenental engines out of
> > probably close to a million flying and more than
> several million
> > successful flying hours may put the Corvair in a
> bad light.
> >
> > Don
> >
> > >If you ask this on the Corvaircraft list
> > >you will hear about all three cranks
> > >breaks and why their engines were
> > >different then the standard William
> > >Wynne conversion.
> > >
> > >While the whole issue of the breaks
> > > was being discussed on the e-mail list
> > >someone posted *two* recalls from
> > >Lycoming for broken cranks.
> > >
> > >-- Craig
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
Nothing wrong with the 0-200 (or the 0-235 for that matter). I just like the
Corvair for many reasons, and I feel it is safe (as "safe" as experimental
aviation can be) when built and operated properly. No matter what engine I
fly, in this or future planes, I will fly them as if my crank could break at
any moment. I plan to build and fly my Corvair, but do not advocate anyone
else flying one who doesn't understand the limits, is uncomfortable with
them, or wants to operate outside them.
My intention was not to suggest that anything is wrong with proven Aircraft
engines. Just to counter some of the superstitious comments that are often
made about a perfectly acceptable, if experimental, engine. And all the
"I've heard this" and "I've heard that" should not deter anyone who is
looking to experiment with aviation. I'm sure the Wright brothers "heard"
that man would never fly, all the time. Lucky for us they didn't listen.
My comment about the Corvair not being alone in crank breakages was just to
illustrate the fact that we all take risk when we fly regardless of what
engine we fly behind. Some guys pushed the limits and introduced multiple
unknowns into the equation--and those all added up to some broken
cranks--but, so far, there hasn't been a single occurrence of crank failure
in a properly built WW designed engine. If that is not enough for you, don't
build a Corvair.
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
brucelee@mn.rr.com
Subject: Re: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank
--> Zenith-List message posted by: brucelee@mn.rr.com
I've promised to keep my posts noninflammatory whenever possible but,
am I missing somthing? Why don't more builders use the o-200
Continental?
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: Corvair crank |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>Why don't more builders use the o-200
>Continental?
Bruce,
Those people who want a real aircraft engine are more likely to buy a
Jabiru 3300 than a Continental o-300. It costs less, weighs less,
had 30% more power, and has two more cylinders. It is also a purpose
built aircraft engine with dual ignition and all the other aircraft
engine qualities. Alas, it still costs perhaps twice as much as a
rebuilt clapped out auto engine.
Paul
XL wings
do not archive
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Your post is *not* inflammatory. Engine choice is an area where reasonable
minds will differ. Just about every engine flying (including Hog Air's
Harley Davidson motorcycle engine) has its good and bad points. Some people
with serious aviation experience have looked at the Corvair engine and spent
10 years refining the conversion and conducting objective tests. Brand-new
unmodified Corvair engines were flown on planes in the mid 1960's.
The key points of a Corvair engine is that it is a cheap, reliable source of
100 HP in an aircraft. A air-cooled, horizontally-opposed, six cylinder
engine (sound familiar?). The initial complete rebuild of the engine will
cost about $5000. That is essentially a new engine - pistons, cylinders,
rings, valves, cam, etc. Jabiru talks about their crank as being machined
from a solid billet. The Corvairs's is forged and stronger - something you
can afford to do when you are GM and building 1.7 million of them. Anyway,
you have to compare the cost of a "new" Corvair to a "new" engine X. And
then you have to compare the costs of overhauling the engine.
And of course sticking a conventional aircraft engine is boring :-)
I know I won't change any minds here. If you have an open mind on the
subject go read as much of www.flycorvair.com as you wish.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
brucelee@mn.rr.com
Subject: Re: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank
--> Zenith-List message posted by: brucelee@mn.rr.com
I've promised to keep my posts noninflammatory whenever possible but, am I
missing somthing? Why don't more builders use the o-200 Continental? Yes, it
costs somewhat more than a Corvair, but it's usually cheaper than a
Lycoming. It's a "real airplane engine", it has redundant ignition, you can
have a lightweight alternator without worrying about a belt, and by changing
the cam and adding tuned exhaust, you can easily surpass 110hp. To me, it
just seems like a natural fit for the 601XL.
Bruce Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Mountain <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain
> <mountain4don@yahoo.com>
> Its nice that you can throw in a statement like you did Craig about
> the Lycoming crankshafts to try to minimize the effects to the
> readers on the appearance of three Corvair engine crank failures.
> Comparing the three crank failures, and how many other Corvair engines
> I have heard of that seemed to have a very premature mode of failure,
> on roughly 400 Corvair engines flying really indicates a large
> percentage of failure. On the other hand, the few failures of
> Lycoming and Contenental engines out of probably close to a million
> flying and more than several million successful flying hours may put
> the Corvair in a bad light.
>
> Don
>
> >If you ask this on the Corvaircraft list >you will hear about all
> three cranks >breaks and why their engines were >different then the
> standard William >Wynne conversion.
> >
> >While the whole issue of the breaks
> > was being discussed on the e-mail list >someone posted *two*
> recalls from >Lycoming for broken cranks.
> >
> >-- Craig
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Battery location |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "John anderson" <ande437@bellsouth.net>
Hi,
I have a battery placement question. I am about finished with an 0235 installation
in a 601HD. I believe ZAC suggests mounting it in the tail. I did W/B with
it sitting on the horizontal stabilizer, the approximate position it would
be in the tail. Aft CG 17at gross. Moved battery behind seat to original position.
Aft CG 13.72. Forward CG13.3 and 11.64. Both positions are in the range
of the HD's CG. I plan to add HDS wings which I don't think will affect the CG
very much. I am leaning toward the forward mounting. What are your thoughts?
John
Alabama
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: Battery location |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Hi John,
Just one question: Is your W/B done with a pilot or with just an
empty plane. I don't know how much impact it might have, but it is
the flying CG that matters and that requires at least a pilot.
Good luck,
Paul
XL wings
do not archive
At 04:46 PM 12/20/2005, you wrote:
>Hi,
> I have a battery placement question. I am about finished with an
> 0235 installation in a 601HD. I believe ZAC suggests mounting it in
> the tail. I did W/B with it sitting on the horizontal stabilizer,
> the approximate position it would be in the tail. Aft CG 17at
> gross. Moved battery behind seat to original position. Aft
> CG 13.72. Forward CG13.3 and 11.64. Both positions are in the
> range of the HD's CG. I plan to add HDS wings which I don't think
> will affect the CG very much. I am leaning toward the forward
> mounting. What are your thoughts?
>John
>Alabama
>Do not archive
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
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: Corvair crank. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Here I go...
VW: The factory type of crank will work perfectly (will not brake) with engine
displacment up to 1,835 cc (69 x 92) The cranks that broke were aftermarket
bigger strokers and diferent kind of alloy...
Corvair: It happens that if you use an extension (cant remember the size) happens
to give to much effort for the crank. without that extension there is
no problem. There is a limit in the size of any prop extension, even in Cont
and Lycos.
Just build the engines as specified by the instructions and as any engine, will
work as designed.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Bob Gibfried <rfg842@cox.net> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Gibfried"
Was told about it third hand that one of William's Corvair engines snapped a
crank during its first few hours of flight. Engine was in a KR2S with a
prop spacer which may or may not have anything to do with it.
Anyone else know of the incident? I know that this is not an unusual
problem with the Volks conversion.
Bob, Wichita
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: | Fuel system rework |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry" <lrm01@centurytel.net>
BlankJust finished completely reworking my fuel delivery system. For those who are interested, the new page is, www.skyhawg.com/fuelsystem.html.
Larry Martin, www.skyhawg.com
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|