Non certified engines.

Mike Gaskins wrote:
There are plenty of certified engines flying around that are much older
than that (and I would trust those too). Do you think Contintental is
still making A-65's to throw into the Cubs and Champs that so many
people still fly? Given that a Corvair conversion done according to
established plans (by William Wynne) will be completely rebuilt and
with many new/specialized parts, it's largely a new engine. There are
a LOT of them flying in experimentals these days. There have been a
few issues with the crankshafts (no major accidents have resulted from
this), but with nitriding the shaft it should be fine.

As to finding one, as is often pointed out, GM made more (several times
more) Corvair engines back in the 60's than Lycoming has made of any
engine during it's whole history. Finding them is quite easy. The
usually sell for $300 or less. You'll have to dump another $3k or so
into it to get it airworthy though.

Is there a FAQ on Corvair engines? How do I go about finding out more
information, like were to look for one, the Wynne conversion, and what
are the specs of the finished product?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
...


Corvair?! Wouldn't that make the engine at least 40 years old? Do you
trust that?



www.flycorvair.com

Hey, that works! Thank you.

"Tater Schuld" wrote in message
...

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:25:16 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
wrote:



ummm curtis jenny? used a water cooled ford engine.

the jenny used an OX-5 engine surely?

I could be wrong. the only Curtis jenny I saw was in the bell museum at
Niagara Falls being restored. It had a water radiator that looked
automotive with a hole made in it. I *thought* I saw a ford logo on it but
I could be mistaken.

You were mistaken. Yes, it has a radiator with a tank on the top. I guess
that looks "automotive." Most aircraft used water cooled engines until
they got enough cooling fins on the cylinders and the airplanes got fast
enough to make the air cooling work reasonably well, in the 1920's. Then
they quickly switched over to air cooling, with a few exceptions that hung
on through WWII, such as the Merlin used in the P-51 and the Allison used in
the P-38 and P-40.

The WWI era Hall Scott was an all aluminum water cooled engine with four
valves per cylinder for better breathing. Unfortunately they were not very
reliable and the airplane manufacturers preferred the inexpensive, readily
available Curtiss OX-5 which put out 90 solid horsepower at only 450 pounds
and there were thousands of them available after the war because Curtiss put
them into every JN-2 "Jenny" ever built. Most of the low cost biplanes
built prior to the stockmarket crash of 1929 used the OX-5 engine because of
price and availability. The new radial engines that were coming out in the
twenties, such as the lovely Wright that Lindbergh used to fly to France,
cost more than the entire OX-5 powered Waco 10. :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

"Rich S." wrote in message
news
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

Nice guy, but I shooed him away and had trusted airplane buddies do a
*real* final inspection.

I think my FAA inspector must've retired and went into business as a DAR.

Rich S.


The DAR program was established by the FAA to allow a simple means for
retired FAA PMI's to supplement their retirement checks without having to do
any work. :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
...
Mike Gaskins wrote:
Personally, I'll be using a Corvair auto conversion in my project when
the time comes.

Stuart Grey wrote:
Corvair?! Wouldn't that make the engine at least 40 years old? Do you
trust that?

How did you even find such an engine?


My airplane, which I fly regularly, and which many of the regulars here have
ridden in at the Pinckneyville RAH Flyin, has a CERTIFIED engine that ceased
production in 1943. I bought a new magneto coil and it came sealed into a
tin can like a can of sardines. The bottom of the can was labeled "Packed
in 1942." It runs great. Purrs like a kitten.

I trust that a lot more than a trust some of these new computer controlled
car engines! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

PS: The 10th annual Pinckneyville RAH Flyin is coming up May 19, 20, and
21. Let Mary know if you are coming at so that she knows
how many steaks to buy. Otherwise you may windup with nothing to eat! :-)

"Highflyer" wrote

The new radial engines that were coming out in the twenties, such as the
lovely Wright that Lindbergh used to fly to France, cost more than the
entire OX-5 powered Waco 10. :-)
\
Thanks for pointing that jem out. I don't think I have ever seen or heard
of the Waco 10 before.
--
Jim in NC

"Highflyer" wrote in message
...

"Tater Schuld" wrote in message
...

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:25:16 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
wrote:

ummm curtis jenny? used a water cooled ford engine.

the jenny used an OX-5 engine surely?

I could be wrong. the only Curtis jenny I saw was in the bell museum at
You were mistaken. Yes, it has a radiator with a tank on the top. I
guess
available Curtiss OX-5 which put out 90 solid horsepower at only 450
pounds and there were thousands of them available after the war because
Curtiss put

ok, I haven't been looking too hard, but how does that compare to some of
the water cooled automotive engines of today?

"Highflyer" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
...
Mike Gaskins wrote:
Personally, I'll be using a Corvair auto conversion in my project when
the time comes.

Stuart Grey wrote:
Corvair?! Wouldn't that make the engine at least 40 years old? Do you
trust that?


My airplane, which I fly regularly, and which many of the regulars here
have ridden in at the Pinckneyville RAH Flyin, has a CERTIFIED engine that
ceased production in 1943. I bought a new magneto coil and it came
sealed into a tin can like a can of sardines. The bottom of the can was
labeled "Packed in 1942." It runs great. Purrs like a kitten.

I trust that a lot more than a trust some of these new computer controlled
car engines! :-)

why?

as far as automotive engines go, they tend to run as reliably, and with less
attention. with oil changes at every 66 hours and inspection at 1700 hours
(assuming an average 45mph), they seem to match aircraft.

this is one reason I am leery about using snowmobile engines, as every
snowmobile I've come across was hard to start, seemed barely able to run,
and was fussy about temperature and humidity values.

(my experience with snowmobiles is very limited, and wrong. I know.)

but I get in my 01 car, turn the key and go. even my 86 truck I can do this.

as far as automotive engines go, they tend to run as reliably, and with less
attention. with oil changes at every 66 hours and inspection at 1700 hours
(assuming an average 45mph), they seem to match aircraft.

But they aren't running at the much higher constant power
settings that aircraft engines do. For instance, a Lycoming O-320 is
redlined at 2700 RPM, and can cruise safely at any RPM up to that. Try
running a Subaru at its 5600 RPM redline for 500 hours and see how long
it lasts. The auto engine is redlined so high to get the HP out of its
shorter stroke and to allow good accelleration, but in cruise the car
needs only a little power. The max power is only short bursts.
There have been a few auto conversions run at max power for long
periods as part of their testing, and the results have been good with
some. Cooling is a usual issue, since the car's radiator isn't usually
designed to dissipate that sort of heat, and better systems have to be
used in the airplane. I ran a Soob 2200 at extended full power in
flight, and even with the full-sized rad and a lot of fancy ducting
there still were temperature issues.

this is one reason I am leery about using snowmobile engines, as every
snowmobile I've come across was hard to start, seemed barely able to run,
and was fussy about temperature and humidity values.

Two-strokes are ornery like that, and they put out a lot of power
for their weight, which produces a lot of waste heat that has to be
managed well or they'll seize up.

(my experience with snowmobiles is very limited, and wrong. I know.)

but I get in my 01 car, turn the key and go. even my 86 truck I can do this.

That's because it has about 50 pounds of computers and
injector solenoids and sensors and so on, and in an airplane that
weight is unwelcome and those systems add more failure points. When it
quits, it quits without any warning, unlike most ancient aircraft
engine systems. Further, the homebuilder prides himself on his ability
to fix anything on his airplane, and those electronic systems are
unfriendly to the average homebuilder.
There are good signs that aircraft engines are adopting the new
technology in a more weight-concious and reliable manner, though. We
call it FADEC.

Dan

wrote in message
oups.com...
as far as automotive engines go, they tend to run as reliably, and with
less
attention. with oil changes at every 66 hours and inspection at 1700 hours
(assuming an average 45mph), they seem to match aircraft.

But they aren't running at the much higher constant power
settings that aircraft engines do.

I understand that, but is it because the aircraft engines are under-rated
due to their designed purpose?

and If one designes the pro and such to run at less than redline, the issues
you commented about woudl disapear. the issue of weight vs horsepower rear
their heads, but it isn't the issue I was looking at.

the issue i was looking at was lowest price point versus power, not price
point per horsepower per pound.

example, I get an engine that weights 400 pounds and cranks 150 hp at a
consistent RPM for $100, or I can get a 200 pound engine that does the same
thing for $5000. or maybe a 300 pound engine that does it for $1000. which
woudl be best? the 200 pound one. which would work? depends on the design of
the plane.

There have been a few auto conversions run at max power for long
periods as part of their testing, and the results have been good with
some. Cooling is a usual issue, since the car's radiator isn't usually
designed to dissipate that sort of heat

so use an oversize radiator, not the stock one used by the car with that
engine. more fiddling but not impossible.

but I get in my 01 car, turn the key and go. even my 86 truck I can do
this.

That's because it has about 50 pounds of computers and
injector solenoids and sensors and so on, and in an airplane that
weight is unwelcome and those systems add more failure points.

but if it works, wouldnt it justify it's extra weight? and how much of that
extra weight can be cut of? cases, cables shrouds, and such are designed
with reliability in mind, not weight consiousness.

any my 86 truck uses maybe 25 pounds of electronics gear, the oil pressure
sensor dont work, and doesnt use injectors. If it was a 4 cyl instead of a 6
i'd use it for an example. those ford inline six's are nearlying
indestructable and never seem to fail. maybe on the 2nd plane i design. too
bad they are going the way of the VW engine.

When it
quits, it quits without any warning, unlike most ancient aircraft
engine systems.

and those systems dont have EGT or CHT senors, not do their inspections have
you number the spark plugs as they are removed to evaluate each cylinder.
nor do Autos let you control fuel mixture on the fly.

take an auto engine, add some aircraft engine technology and you'd get teh
same reliability.

Further, the homebuilder prides himself on his ability
to fix anything on his airplane, and those electronic systems are
unfriendly to the average homebuilder.

yeah, I'd agree, but the black boxes that cars use are SOOOOO much easier to
replace, wallet wise.