Corvair conversion engines

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.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:06:33 -0600, Cal Vanize
wrote:

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.

Cal, the statement I was responding to was from the guy who said that
auto engines end up essentially costing as much as an aircraft engine.
I was posting my actual costs to suggest that the costs are, or can
be, very much lower for the auto engine conversion than for a rebuilt
aircraft engine.

But I chose to do all the work, except for the machining of the engine
parts, myself. If you do not wish to put in that kind of time, or do
not have the knowledge to do so, then the options tend to be a lot
more expensive.

Buying a firewall forward package and simply bolting it in place and
connecting the wires and fuel lines will of course cost a bunch more
than doing everything yourself. Perhaps this is what that gentleman
was talking about.

Corky Scott

wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:06:33 -0600, Cal Vanize
wrote:

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.

Cal, the statement I was responding to was from the guy who said that
auto engines end up essentially costing as much as an aircraft engine.
I was posting my actual costs to suggest that the costs are, or can
be, very much lower for the auto engine conversion than for a rebuilt
aircraft engine.

But I chose to do all the work, except for the machining of the engine
parts, myself. If you do not wish to put in that kind of time, or do
not have the knowledge to do so, then the options tend to be a lot
more expensive.

Buying a firewall forward package and simply bolting it in place and
connecting the wires and fuel lines will of course cost a bunch more
than doing everything yourself. Perhaps this is what that gentleman
was talking about.

Is there any good reason to use the Ford instead of the Buick V6?
There are a lot more Buick V6s out there. Also, there is a lot of
support from the aftermarket, hot rod and racing business for the Buick
engine and apparently none at all for the Ford V6.

The other engine to look at in my opinion is the Honda/Acura engine,
because they are readily available cheap from JDM pulls. The Japanese
have laws designed to encourage vehicles to be junked or exported
young, and those that do not get bought by Australians or Brits usually
get scrapped because Japan is a RHD market.

My neighbor's son bought the back half of a Toyota MR2 in absolutely
beautiful shape-and I do mean "the back half", as in "the car was
sliced in half by a colossal bandsaw"-for $1200 when his transaxle
failed. He got a engine, trans, rear brakes, halfshafts, everything.

Is there any good reason to use the Ford instead of the Buick V6?
There are a lot more Buick V6s out there. Also, there is a lot of
support from the aftermarket, hot rod and racing business for the Buick
engine and apparently none at all for the Ford V6.

I don't have personal experience. However, my fellow chapter members have
told me that the Ford V6 engine is considerably lighter as it comes in (or
from) a car.

That said, the aluminum heads and blocks alleged to be available should make
a lighter and stronger engine. BTW, the name "Bow Tie Racing" was
mentioned, but yielded no plausible result in my quick web search.

The only word of caution to which I can personally attest (from my younger
and crazier days) is to be *very* careful of racing and hot rodding parts
designed to give you oversized ports and manifolds. As you increase the
diameter of the passages, you also decrease the velocity of the gasses;
which will result in a very "cammy" high speed engine with poor pulling
power and a poor ability to turn a fixed pitch propeller.

"RapidRonnie" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:06:33 -0600, Cal Vanize
wrote:

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.

Cal, the statement I was responding to was from the guy who said that
auto engines end up essentially costing as much as an aircraft engine.
I was posting my actual costs to suggest that the costs are, or can
be, very much lower for the auto engine conversion than for a rebuilt
aircraft engine.

But I chose to do all the work, except for the machining of the engine
parts, myself. If you do not wish to put in that kind of time, or do
not have the knowledge to do so, then the options tend to be a lot
more expensive.

Buying a firewall forward package and simply bolting it in place and
connecting the wires and fuel lines will of course cost a bunch more
than doing everything yourself. Perhaps this is what that gentleman
was talking about.

Is there any good reason to use the Ford instead of the Buick V6?
There are a lot more Buick V6s out there. Also, there is a lot of
support from the aftermarket, hot rod and racing business for the Buick
engine and apparently none at all for the Ford V6.

The other engine to look at in my opinion is the Honda/Acura engine,
because they are readily available cheap from JDM pulls. The Japanese
have laws designed to encourage vehicles to be junked or exported
young, and those that do not get bought by Australians or Brits usually
get scrapped because Japan is a RHD market.

My neighbor's son bought the back half of a Toyota MR2 in absolutely
beautiful shape-and I do mean "the back half", as in "the car was
sliced in half by a colossal bandsaw"-for $1200 when his transaxle
failed. He got a engine, trans, rear brakes, halfshafts, everything.

Cal, the statement I was responding to was from the guy who said that
auto engines end up essentially costing as much as an aircraft engine.
I was posting my actual costs to suggest that the costs are, or can
be, very much lower for the auto engine conversion than for a rebuilt
aircraft engine.

But I chose to do all the work, except for the machining of the engine
parts, myself. If you do not wish to put in that kind of time, or do
not have the knowledge to do so, then the options tend to be a lot
more expensive.

Buying a firewall forward package and simply bolting it in place and
connecting the wires and fuel lines will of course cost a bunch more
than doing everything yourself. Perhaps this is what that gentleman
was talking about.

Corky Scott

Corky, could you tell us how successfull you were with your Ford engine.

Curious

Jean-Paul

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:44:18 -0500, "Jean-Paul Roy"
wrote:

Corky, could you tell us how successfull you were with your Ford engine.

Curious

Jean-Paul

Successful in what sense? I got it running and was just beginning my
testing of the engine when I had a kind of revelation, and sold
everything, and all aviation related tools and building materials I'd
accumulated.

The only real reason I was building the airplane was so that my wife
and I could, upon retiring, tour the area and the US at our leasure.
But she just can't fly for long without experiencing lots of pain from
the lowered pressure on her ears. Not to mention her tendency towards
air sickness.

I was at a point where the next steps in the construction would have
been pretty expensive. I had to blast and paint the fuselage, wire it
and cover it. I then had to buy and install all the necessary
instruments and deal with the cooling system for the engine. Then I
had to paint the fabric. I figured that I still had another $5,000 to
$10,000 I could put into it before it was ready to fly. Plus, then
I'd need hangar $space and in$surance. All for an airplane I'd be
mostly flying by myself, to take me to various $100 hamburger
destinations, once in a while when the weather was nice.

It just didn't seem worth it, so I sold everything last summer.

The engine went to a builder of a Bearhawk, the fuselage/wings went to
an A&P from Florida, a guy who wanted something he felt was mostly
already constructed as he's 65. So everything went to a good home.

I can't stand not building something though so I'm back at it, but in
a different venue: I'm building a cedar strip canoe. My wife and I
got out on the Connecticut River last summer in a friends beater canoe
and she powerfully pulled her weight paddling all day. Her comment
was "I can do this," and "we could bring the dogs too". We have two
dogs who don't like being left alone.

Additionally, paddling canoes means you aren't burning fossile fuels
for your entertainment, although you do burn some getting to where you
put in.

Once that's built, I'm looking at building a smallish day sailer. So
in terms of building something, I'm having a good time.

I'm also turning to woodworking to work on the house. One of the big
pluses is that I get to buy new machines, heh heh.

Corky Scott

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:45:21 -0500,
wrote:


a different venue: I'm building a cedar strip canoe. My wife and I
got out on the Connecticut River last summer in a friends beater canoe
and she powerfully pulled her weight paddling all day. Her comment
was "I can do this," and "we could bring the dogs too". We have two
dogs who don't like being left alone.

Additionally, paddling canoes means you aren't burning fossile fuels
for your entertainment, although you do burn some getting to where you
put in.

Once that's built, I'm looking at building a smallish day sailer. So
in terms of building something, I'm having a good time.

I'm also turning to woodworking to work on the house. One of the big
pluses is that I get to buy new machines, heh heh.

Corky Scott

next you'll be telling us that you are gay.

talk aeroplanes or die.

Stealth Pilot

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:06:33 -0600, Cal Vanize
wrote:



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.

You mean like a Lycoming? or an old Franklin?

clare wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:06:33 -0600, Cal Vanize
wrote:



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.


You mean like a Lycoming? or an old Franklin?

Can't speak for Franklins. But I've never had even a skip on Lycomings
with with over 400 hours flying PIC in plances with Lyc engines nor with
any Conti with over 500 hours PIC in those. These weren't in homebuilts.