Corvair conversion engines

Let's say you have to replace the engine 4 times to get 2000 hours. You are
still saving money over the cost of a Lyc or Cont and there is no guarantee
they will make it to TBO either.



"Cal Vanize" wrote in message
...

As my research continues, I have been investigating possible engines for a
601XL. The Corvair engines looked like a good candidate. The reports
seemed very good and the engine was surprisingly inexpensive for initial
purchase and long-term maintenance.

The stated expected TBO is 1500 hours and the Corvair Authority website
documents the use of a Corvair engine in a 601XL.

Everything seemed OK until yesterday when I read the most recent updates
on their website. Seems that the "untreated" automotive cranks have been
cracking in a very short time. Nitriding seems like the only solution.
But with standard cranks cracking at under 100 hours, what would be the
expected life of a nitrided crank. Twice as long, four times as long,
eight times as long? This would still fall short of the 1500 hour TBO
stated by the Corvair Authority.

Does anyone have any first hand experience with Corvair conversion
engines? Any info on their realistic life and reliability?

TIA,

CV

But would you have to replace the engine?
Maybe just a crank overhaul every 4-500 hours, in the middle of
winter, after a good snow storm, nothing else to do.

I just think hanging a prop on a crank directly is a non-starter in
the first place...especially on a crank and case not specifically
designed for this in the first palce. Maybe a good redrive and flywheel
would be a better way to go?

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

I just think hanging a prop on a crank directly is a non-starter in
the first place...especially on a crank and case not specifically
designed for this in the first palce. Maybe a good redrive and flywheel
would be a better way to go?

That is my opinion, also.
--
Jim in NC

When it really gets down to facts, most often aircraft engines really
don't cost any more than auto conversions and the aircraft engine
appears to be more reliable.
No redrives needed, redundant ignition and lots of other things that
makes them better.

I was a firm believer in auto engine conversions but i haven't seen many
last a long time except for the Subaru and Rotax engines.



Morgans wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...


I just think hanging a prop on a crank directly is a non-starter in
the first place...especially on a crank and case not specifically
designed for this in the first palce. Maybe a good redrive and flywheel
would be a better way to go?


That is my opinion, also.

wrote in message ...
When it really gets down to facts, most often aircraft engines really
don't cost any more than auto conversions and the aircraft engine
appears to be more reliable.
No redrives needed, redundant ignition and lots of other things that
makes them better.

I was a firm believer in auto engine conversions but i haven't seen many
last a long time except for the Subaru and Rotax engines.

There are many V-6's running, some significant numbers, time wise.

VW's flying all over the place.

Mercedes diesels in what, Thielert brand name?

Oh, by the way, Rotax is NOT an auto conversion.
--
Jim in NC

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:38:52 -0600, wrote:

When it really gets down to facts, most often aircraft engines really
don't cost any more than auto conversions and the aircraft engine
appears to be more reliable.
No redrives needed, redundant ignition and lots of other things that
makes them better.

I was a firm believer in auto engine conversions but i haven't seen many
last a long time except for the Subaru and Rotax engines.

I bought two 3.8L Ford V6's for $150 each, bought new pistons from
Roush racing, new rings, had the best block shot peened bored and
honed, had the best crank turned and nitrided, bought new bearings,
new cam, new distributer with two sensors installed for dual ignition,
new pistons, new timing gears and chain, planed the heads, had four
new intake valves installed and new guides installed as well, new
valve springs, roller rockers, new lifters, new carburetor, old style
NWAero psru, ARP studs for the crank bearings and cylinderheads,
fabricated my own headers, and STILL spent only about $6,000.

Now, how much does one pay for a remanufactured aircraft engine of 200
horsepower?

Corky Scott

wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:38:52 -0600, wrote:


When it really gets down to facts, most often aircraft engines really
don't cost any more than auto conversions and the aircraft engine
appears to be more reliable.
No redrives needed, redundant ignition and lots of other things that
makes them better.

I was a firm believer in auto engine conversions but i haven't seen many
last a long time except for the Subaru and Rotax engines.


I bought two 3.8L Ford V6's for $150 each, bought new pistons from
Roush racing, new rings, had the best block shot peened bored and
honed, had the best crank turned and nitrided, bought new bearings,
new cam, new distributer with two sensors installed for dual ignition,
new pistons, new timing gears and chain, planed the heads, had four
new intake valves installed and new guides installed as well, new
valve springs, roller rockers, new lifters, new carburetor, old style
NWAero psru, ARP studs for the crank bearings and cylinderheads,
fabricated my own headers, and STILL spent only about $6,000.

Now, how much does one pay for a remanufactured aircraft engine of 200
horsepower?

Corky Scott

I don't think there's any dispute over the relative cost of engines.
This issue is longevity and whether one wants to fly an airplane with an
engine that might not make it to the next airport.

wrote)
I bought two 3.8L Ford V6's for $150 each, bought new pistons from Roush
racing, new rings, had the best block shot peened bored and honed, had the
best crank turned and nitrided, bought new bearings, new cam, new
distributer with two sensors installed for dual ignition, new pistons, new
timing gears and chain, planed the heads, had four new intake valves
installed and new guides installed as well, new valve springs, roller
rockers, new lifters, new carburetor, old style NWAero psru, ARP studs for
the crank bearings and cylinderheads, fabricated my own headers, and STILL
spent only about $6,000.


Why not fuel injected?

Also, is that two for $3K each?

What does that setup weigh?

Was matching a prop to your engine a problem? 3 bladed prop?

Curious...


Montblack

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:38:52 -0600, wrote:

When it really gets down to facts, most often aircraft engines really
don't cost any more than auto conversions and the aircraft engine
appears to be more reliable.
No redrives needed, redundant ignition and lots of other things that
makes them better.

I was a firm believer in auto engine conversions but i haven't seen many
last a long time except for the Subaru and Rotax engines.


And the Rotax is not an auto engine - it's an Aero engine - and it is
no more reliable/longlived than many conversions.

Morgans wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...


I just think hanging a prop on a crank directly is a non-starter in
the first place...especially on a crank and case not specifically
designed for this in the first palce. Maybe a good redrive and flywheel
would be a better way to go?


That is my opinion, also.