---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 12/20/05: 23 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:20:00 AM PST US From: "Gig Giacona" "Zenith-List Digest List" Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith-List Digest: 33 Msgs - 12/19/05 INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0001 1.0000 -2.0206 --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" 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 > 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 > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:38:21 AM PST US From: "Bob Gibfried" Subject: Zenith-List: Corvair crank --> 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 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:07:31 AM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Zenith-List: Corvair Crank Failure --> Zenith-List message posted by: Rick Lindstrom 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:12:50 AM PST US From: "B Johnson" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank --> Zenith-List message posted by: "B Johnson" 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:34:43 AM PST US From: N5SL Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Corvair crank --> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL 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 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 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:35:04 AM PST US From: Monty Graves Britain. Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Jabiru engines and low oil pressures concerns in Great Britain. --> Zenith-List message posted by: Monty Graves 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" >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" > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:45:29 AM PST US From: "Robin Bellach" <601zv@ritternet.com> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:39 AM Subject: Zenith-List: Corvair crank > --> 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 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:12:00 AM PST US From: "T. Graziano" Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Auto conversion - Jab bearings --> Zenith-List message posted by: "T. Graziano" 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" Subject: Zenith-List: Auto conversiona --> 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 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:35:42 AM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:45:02 AM PST US From: "kevinbonds" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank --> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:38:10 AM PST US From: David Winsett Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Auto engine crankshaft bearings --> Zenith-List message posted by: David Winsett 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:39:58 AM PST US From: Don Mountain Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:01:30 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:07:49 PM PST US From: 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 Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:21:59 PM PST US From: "kevinbonds" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank --> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" 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" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:47:23 PM PST US From: N5SL Subject: Re: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank --> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL 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 > Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:38 pm > Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank > > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:40:38 PM PST US From: "kevinbonds" Subject: RE: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank --> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:41:09 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz >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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:50:25 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" 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 Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Corvair crank > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:49:06 PM PST US From: "John anderson" Subject: Zenith-List: Battery location --> Zenith-List message posted by: "John anderson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:20:00 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Battery location --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:30:50 PM PST US From: Gary Gower Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Corvair crank. --> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:06:03 PM PST US From: "Larry" Subject: Zenith-List: Fuel system rework --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry" 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