V-8 powered Seabee

Kyle,

What has been the experiences with the other members of
your EAA chapter with their "Certified" engines for this
last year?

Why did the first homebuilt engine quit?

I don't buy the second issue as an engine issue. If you
don't build anything right its gonna fail. I can't believe
that the airplane was above its gross weight with a single
pilot and a homebuilt engine.

I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a
Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well.

I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
install.

Thanks
--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.


Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
ink.net...




Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been
flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every
auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type. Do
Lycosaurs fail? Yes they do, but tell there are some solid percentages
comparing the number flying versus the number of hours Bob is right to
be skeptical. Maybe the engine itself is not to blame, but tell all the
components are tried and test I would not not ask my family or
passengers to ride in an auto powered aircraft over hostile terrain.

Jerry


Building on what Jerry said...

"My" EAA chapter has 3 members with Auto Conversion powered aircraft. One
of them was totalled this spring when the engine failed. A second was
totalled this fall when the gear failed because the stock gear wasn't up to
the task of hauling around all of the extra weight. The third aircraft s
still flying, but has had at least two engine out experiences, both of which
turned out to be problems keeping his engine's electronic brain-box supplied
with electrons. In both cases the aircraft was close enough to an airport
to make an uneventful dead stick landing.

Bottom line, your risks are significantly increased if you use an auto
conversion. Neither the engine or structure is designed with that purpose in
mind, and the systems will (generally) be more complex than a Lyc or
Continental. Sure, it can be done properly, but more are done the *wrong*
way than the right way.

KB

"Bart D. Hull" wrote in message
m...
Kyle,

What has been the experiences with the other members of
your EAA chapter with their "Certified" engines for this
last year?

Why did the first homebuilt engine quit?

I don't buy the second issue as an engine issue. If you
don't build anything right its gonna fail. I can't believe
that the airplane was above its gross weight with a single
pilot and a homebuilt engine.

I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a
Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well.

I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
install.

Thanks
--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.


Kyle Boatright wrote:


"My" EAA chapter has 3 members with Auto Conversion powered aircraft.
One
of them was totalled this spring when the engine failed. A second was
totalled this fall when the gear failed because the stock gear wasn't up
to
the task of hauling around all of the extra weight. The third aircraft
s
still flying, but has had at least two engine out experiences, both of
which
turned out to be problems keeping his engine's electronic brain-box
supplied
with electrons. In both cases the aircraft was close enough to an
airport
to make an uneventful dead stick landing.

Bottom line, your risks are significantly increased if you use an auto
conversion. Neither the engine or structure is designed with that
purpose in
mind, and the systems will (generally) be more complex than a Lyc or
Continental. Sure, it can be done properly, but more are done the
*wrong*
way than the right way.

KB

The first aircraft went down because the subaru ate a valve. There was some
talk in the chapter that the engine's oil temperatures were very high, but
the owner has never personally confirmed this in my presence. The gear
failure was related to *where* the weight was located - all of it was waaay
up front. The electrical problems on the third aircraft had to do with a
ground wire that had an intermittant connection which took out the brain
box. Obviously, with two ignition systems - particularly if at least is a
magneto, the chances of losing BOTH ignition systems is very small. The
chances of losing the *single* home baked ignition system is much higher.

Again, most folks don't have the ability, financial ability, or patience to
properly engineer an engine conversion that is up to Lycoming or Continental
standards. There are all sorts of NTSB cases which indicate this. I'm sure
it can be done, but at what price? 5-10 years and/or a million dollars in
development costs? To KNOW you've got the equivalent of a Lycoming or
Continental, that's what it would take...

This year's only *bad* chapter experience with a certified engine was a
fellow with a Continental 0-300 who wasn't happy with his compression
readings, so he pulled the cylinders and reseated the valves or something.
A non-event, as it was not a failure, and was dealt with on the ground.
That's one of the better things about certified engines. The engines and
systems are fairly robust, so most problems don't result in the fan
stopping.

KB

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
Better way? New design yes... auto engines no. Sorry I have not been
flying quite as long as Barnyard, only about 40 years for me. BUT every
auto engine conversion I know of has had a failure of some type.

But look at the bright side: With this one, if the SeaBee engine fails,
you get to shoot the dead-stick landing in air-conditioned comfort. :-)

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:22:17 -0700, "Bart D. Hull"
wrote:

I can buy the third issue. But what if it was a FADEC on a
Cont or a LYC instead? They quit without juice as well.

But Continental and Lycoming had to convince a *very* skeptical FAA about
the reliability of the FADEC. They had to prove that the FADEC is at least
as reliable as two magnetos.

I remember an article, years ago, about what Porsche had to do to certify
the PFM engine for the Mooney. They had to prove the two independent
ignition systems *were* completely independent. I think they even had to
apply a sudden dead short across one, just to prove the other one would
keep running.

I'm not being argumentative, but want more details so my
auto-conversion will be more successful than a LYC or Cont
install.

A good goal, and worthy of discussion. With one exception, the failures I
hear about have been fairly random, mostly related to the subsystems rather
than the core engine.

I think the lesson would be to strive for maximum redundancy. There
*should* be two completely independent ignition systems. Two batteries,
two electronics boxes, two sets of plug wires, two plugs per cylinder. The
second should be solely a backup, connected to *nothing* in common with the
primary system. If the primary system uses the distributor drive to time
the ignition, the backup system should run off a hall effect sensor on the
flywheel.

Buy a drycell battery and run it directly to the backup ignition
electronics...no connection to the primary bus. I say a drycell simply
because of their ability to hold a charge a long time. Test the ignition
momentarily during runup and slap a charger on the backup system every week
or so.

That way if your electrical system goes to hellandgone, you've got a
completely independent backup. The drycell should be sized to give you at
least a half-hour of flight time...I'm basing that on the required VFR fuel
reserve.

Probably your biggest worry, compared to a Lycosaur, is cooling. The air
cooling of your classic aircraft engine is extremely reliable...if it cools
properly when it's initially installed, there's very little that can happen
to it to make it NOT cool. If the oil cooler quits working, the engine
probably will last long enough to get you to a runway (other than if it
spews oil everywhere, of course).

You're not going to match that level of reliability; your airplane will
have a water pump, water hoses, and radiator that the Lycosaur lacks and
thus can't stop running if they quit. The lesson here is probably to use
the best quality parts you can find (race-type hoses, etc.) and to oversize
the system... if you develop a coolant leak in flight, it's nice if your
plane has to lose five gallons of coolant before it starts to overheat
rather than five quarts. Gauge the heck out of it, too...you want to be
able to detect problems as early as possible. I'd try put together some
sort of annunciator system rather than depend on the pilot's eyes to catch
a fading gauge.

I wonder what could be done along the lines of emergency cooling, like the
emergency ignition? The AVweb article about flying the Hawker Hurricane
makes me wonder about a spray-bar system for auto-engine conversions.
Could you gain some flying time if you had a system that would spray the
engine itself with water? And/Or some emergency cowl flaps that would open
and expose the engine case directly to the slipstream?

The PSRU is another single point failure item. I don't know what one could
do to increase redundancy, but plenty of design margin would be a good
start. Regular, in-depth inspections would be another...guy across from me
just found a crack in one plate of his gyro's PSRU.

Years ago, Kit Sondergren had an article in KITPLANES about terminating the
A-65 engine on his Mustang. He decided it needed to get overhauled, so he
tried a little experiment...he drained out all the oil and ran it on the
ground. IIRC, that engine ran at moderate throttle for something like a
half-hour before it really started to labor. I *like* that in an aircraft
engine. Nothing for cooling but the slipstream, two independent ignition
systems that generate their own power, and a engine that'll run for a
fairly long while with no oil at all. Lycomings and Continentals have one
thing in common with the dinosaurs: They leave mighty big shoes
to fill. :-)

I'm cautious about auto-engine conversions, but I wholly support those who
want to experiment with them. I like your attitude about wanting more
details to help improve your own work. Please continue to plug yourself
into information sources to build the safest engine possible.

Ron Wanttaja

Years ago, Kit Sondergren had an article in KITPLANES about terminating the
A-65 engine on his Mustang. He decided it needed to get overhauled, so he
tried a little experiment...he drained out all the oil and ran it on the
ground. IIRC, that engine ran at moderate throttle for something like a
half-hour before it really started to labor. I *like* that in an aircraft
engine.


Nothing for cooling but the slipstream, two independent ignition
systems that generate their own power, and a engine that'll run for a
fairly long while with no oil at all. Lycomings and Continentals have one
thing in common with the dinosaurs: They leave mighty big shoes
to fill. :-)

Ron Wanttaja
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hopefully, you are reaching more than just the choir. g


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
snip
I think the lesson would be to strive for maximum redundancy. There
*should* be two completely independent ignition systems.
snip
I'm cautious about auto-engine conversions, but I wholly support those who
want to experiment with them. I like your attitude about wanting more
details to help improve your own work. Please continue to plug yourself
into information sources to build the safest engine possible.

The project I'm working on (1924 Epps Light Monoplane replica) motivated
me to learn about modern motorcycle engines. The original engine in the
original plane was an Indian Chief motorcycle engine. From photos it
looked like he initially had it set up as a direct drive, then
subsequently built a chain drive PSRU.

At some point before the plane was sold, it was converted to a Lawrance
A-3 engine. I've heard two stories about why he changed the engine.
One is that he wanted more power (28 hp for the Lawrance vs. 17 hp for
the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain breaking.

In trying to decide what engine to put on the replica, I did a lot of
research on modern motorcycle engines. I found that there are modern
V-Twin engines (Honda VT1100 and Kawasaki 1500) that already have two
spark plugs per cylinder. They do not have redundant ignition systems,
but they lend themselves to building your own.

You pointed out that the PSRU is a single point of failure. One
attraction with many modern motorcycle engines is that most have a well
engineered gear reduction system in place. The down side of it is that
there are usually 4 or 5 reduction ratios more than you need, and there
is a substantial weight penalty associated with the integral transmission.

One interesting motor I found is the Honda series of V-4 engines.
Though they have only one plug per cylinder, they have dual spark boxes.
Some riders I know have lost half their ignition system and had a hard
time telling something was wrong; they just seemed to be down a bit on
power, even though they were running on only two cylinders out of four.

The biggest down side to the use of a modern motorcycle engine in a
plane is that so few people have done it; you are truly experimenting,
which entails obvious risks.

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:47:32 GMT, David Hill
wrote:

The project I'm working on (1924 Epps Light Monoplane replica) motivated
me to learn about modern motorcycle engines. The original engine in the
original plane was an Indian Chief motorcycle engine. From photos it
looked like he initially had it set up as a direct drive, then
subsequently built a chain drive PSRU.

At some point before the plane was sold, it was converted to a Lawrance
A-3 engine. I've heard two stories about why he changed the engine.
One is that he wanted more power (28 hp for the Lawrance vs. 17 hp for
the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain breaking.

Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice
reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekely. :-)

(For those who don't get it: The Szekely 3-cylinder radial has an AD note
calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders. To
prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....)


One interesting motor I found is the Honda series of V-4 engines.
Though they have only one plug per cylinder, they have dual spark boxes.
Some riders I know have lost half their ignition system and had a hard
time telling something was wrong; they just seemed to be down a bit on
power, even though they were running on only two cylinders out of four.

My 1984 Nissan pickup has a straight four with two plugs per cylinder. As
I recall, it has two coils but fires all the plugs via one distributor.

Ron Wanttaja

I am not recomending this but my 95 ford ranger has a 4 cyl.eng. with
dual elect. ign. that is fully redundant in case smeone wants to copy
it.One coil fires one set of plugs and the other,the other.Jim

Ron

I flew the Szekely in a Rearwin Junior 3000 in the late 30's at Des
Moines, IA. Rearwin only built about 30 of the 3000/4000 (4000 used
the Aeromarine AR-3 engine) of the Jr. Szekely started ok. Ran with a
funny sound with the short stacks and three cylinders. Not a smooth
engine.

Did pull the stick out of the fitting as I flared for landing one
time. Of course in those days the birds kind of landed themselves and
it just flopped down and dribbled along and made a touch down about as
good as I was making with the stick in the fitting )

Big John

----clip----

Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice
reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekley. :-)

(For those who don't get it: The Szekley 3-cylinder radial has an AD
note
calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders. To
prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....)

----clip----

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:47:32 GMT, David Hill
wrote:

the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain
breaking.

Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice
reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekely. :-)

(For those who don't get it: The Szekely 3-cylinder radial has an
AD note
calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders.
To
prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....)


Now that's really funny, same as the Bleriot crossing of the English
Channel, by the time he got half way his boots were burning as there
was no fire wall, he has the full heat from the engine to contend
with.:-)
--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place





One interesting motor I found is the Honda series of V-4 engines.
Though they have only one plug per cylinder, they have dual spark
boxes.
Some riders I know have lost half their ignition system and had
a hard
time telling something was wrong; they just seemed to be down a
bit on
power, even though they were running on only two cylinders out of
four.

My 1984 Nissan pickup has a straight four with two plugs per
cylinder. As
I recall, it has two coils but fires all the plugs via one
distributor.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:47:32 GMT, David Hill
wrote:

The project I'm working on (1924 Epps Light Monoplane replica) motivated
me to learn about modern motorcycle engines. The original engine in the
original plane was an Indian Chief motorcycle engine.
snip
At some point before the plane was sold, it was converted to a Lawrance
A-3 engine. I've heard two stories about why he changed the engine.
One is that he wanted more power (28 hp for the Lawrance vs. 17 hp for
the Indian). The other story is that he got tired of the chain breaking.

Hey, cool. But forget those period motorcycle engines. Use a nice
reliable aircraft engine, like a Szekely. :-)

(For those who don't get it: The Szekely 3-cylinder radial has an AD note
calling for a cable running around the outside of the cylinders. To
prevent the parts from flying too far away when they break....)

The Lawrance engine wasn't much better than the Szekely; it actually was
not that much of an improvement over the bike engine. For those not
familiar with it, I think of it as a 2 cylinder radial. It had two
opposing pistons connecting to one crankshaft throw. And as far as I
have been able to determine, no counterweights. That's a lot of mass
being thrown back and forth in synchronization.

The fellow who bought the plane with the Lawrance engine installed
recalled (in 1985 or so) that the engine vibrated terribly. And in fact
the plane was demolished when the engine quit one day with Paul Rizzo
flying it.

The biggest surprise I got regarding the Lawrance engine, once I saw one
up close and in person, is no engine mounts! Just a groove around the
base of each cylinder to facilitate strapping it to the airplane!

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada