Corvair conversion engines

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.

clare at snyder.on.ca 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?


Oh for Pete Sake...ok.

A couple of years back, I picked up an Aeronca Chief down in Florida and
flew it home. Real nice airplane, and a real bargain - because - the
engine wasn't all that great. Continental 85 with metal prop.

It had been "overhauled" by one of the club members (not A.P.) and
they (the sellers) were honest about it up front. It leaked (a bit).
And they were right reasonable on the price.
So a deal was offered, $1000 earnest money sent.
And Leo and I went down to see?/fetch?

We flew it around for a while and determined that the plane was rigged
nice and straight, stalled straight ahead, and with the 85 and a climb
prop, it could for sure and certain - climb!
The little engine ran strong.

Checking the oil level shortly after landing (yeah, I know) showed it
had indeed lost some oil, but we found it - all on the belly.

Oh well, I'm not going to have to clean it. Not part of the deal.

The seller offered to "wipe her down and top off the oil and gas".
(yeah, I know - now.)

So, next morning, oil and gas are full and we headed off for home.

It took 3 days to get home and about 12 hours flying.
Two hour legs left an hour fuel reserve for the Chief.
And the climb prop doesn't go anywhere in a hurry - except up.

This engine leaked so much oil it would embarrassed a Harley.
I mean really!

But something else was wrong.

The engine ran fine, but it felt a little sharper than normal
during climbs, but smooth out fine at cruise.

For the next three days (over swamps, timber, and once VFR on top,
I could actually hear/feel/taste it getting worse.

A little sharper at first. Then louder. Each takeoff.
Only while climbing.

On the last leg home I thought maybe an exhaust muff was opening
up maybe? And then thought - or a cracked mount?
But it smoothed out at cruise.

When we rolled out at home, I was glad to be there, because I had
decided that the engine was indeed failing and needed to be looked
over.
Very carefully.
BEFORE flying it again.

It still ran strong, but something was really major league wrong
somewhere during climb out.

When Bob (A.P.) tore it down he found the bad seals, sure, and some
other minor stuff, and one cylinder with a crack about 1/4 of the
circumference of the flange.

The crank and cam were ok. Mags ok.
A (as in one each - count it) new jug, bearings, seals, etc.
signed off major overhaul cost 4 grand.

Grandpa, the new owner, it totally tickled with his Chief.

He learned to fly in it.
Took his PPSEL check ride in it.
Took his _wife_ flying in it!
Someday his boys will have their chance to learn to fly in it.


So, what exactly is the point, you ask?

This issue is longevity and whether one wants to fly an airplane with
an engine that might not make it to the next airport.

Right
Hell if I know.
But it was a fun trip otherwise...

Richard