A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Corvair conversion engines



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old January 22nd 06, 03:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Corvair conversion engines


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


  #42  
Old January 23rd 06, 06:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Corvair conversion engines

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
  #44  
Old January 24th 06, 07:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Corvair conversion engines - cracked crank link

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:17:35 -0600, Cal Vanize
wrote:



Richard Lamb wrote:

Cal Vanize wrote:


The issue us addressed in this page:

http://www.flycorvair.com/crankissues.html

The date on the page is 15 January 2006 - just released information.



Ron Webb wrote:

Do you have a link for the broken cranks? I cannot find anything
about broken cranks on the "Corvair authority" site.

http://www.flycorvair.com/

I did find the following statement:

"I have never seen a cracked head, cylinder, case, crank or rod in
the hundreds of Corvair engines I have inspected. It is a very strong
engine."

The Corvair engine has been flying since the early 1960's. Seems odd
that ANY flaw would only now be being discovered.





that dose seem like a lot of broken cranks...


Three out of five cranks cracked. All with 200 or less hours. That's a
small sampling, but not very good results.

The article does indicate that the cranks were from engines in planes
that were flying. That's the good news. But does that also mean that
the engines need a teardown and inspection as part of every oil change?


These were also 40 year old cranks of unknown provenence, pulled out
of old car engines that may have been thrashed to within an inch of
their lives in previous "inCARnations"

  #45  
Old January 24th 06, 08:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Corvair conversion engines - cracked crank link

---------much snipped-----------


These were also 40 year old cranks of unknown provenence, pulled out
of old car engines that may have been thrashed to within an inch of
their lives in previous "inCARnations"

This has been my area of concern as well. I would really find these
engines more attractive if I was confident that a complete new engine could
be built.


  #46  
Old January 24th 06, 08:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Corvair conversion engines - cracked crank link

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
news
---------much snipped-----------


These were also 40 year old cranks of unknown provenence, pulled out
of old car engines that may have been thrashed to within an inch of
their lives in previous "inCARnations"

This has been my area of concern as well. I would really find these
engines more attractive if I was confident that a complete new engine
could
be built.

New engines don't have crankshaft problems?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Rich S.


  #47  
Old January 24th 06, 10:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Corvair conversion engines - cracked crank link


"Rich S." wrote in message
...
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
news
---------much snipped-----------


These were also 40 year old cranks of unknown provenence, pulled out
of old car engines that may have been thrashed to within an inch of
their lives in previous "inCARnations"

This has been my area of concern as well. I would really find these
engines more attractive if I was confident that a complete new engine
could
be built.


New engines don't have crankshaft problems?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Rich S.

Yes. I know that they do, and new design engines are notorious; as are
design improvements, changes of supplier, etc. And they include plenty of
reasons for loss of power not caused by the crankshaft!

However, my concerns include, reliability, maintainability, and eventual
replacement; and I think you understand my point.

At this point, the Jabiru 3300 is the only engine that really looks to me
like a promising replacement; and I really don't know its service record.
However, albeit at a higher dollar price, its features seem to preserve: 1)
similar or lighter weight, 2) similar or higher power, 3) six cylinder
smoothness, 4) reasonably slow idle, and 5) similar dimmensions. Additional
benefits are designed in dual ignition and an updraft intake system, similar
to Lycoming and Continental, which should be more resistant to ice.

Peter


  #48  
Old January 24th 06, 10:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Corvair conversion engines - cracked crank link

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
Yes. I know that they do, and new design engines are notorious; as are
design improvements, changes of supplier, etc. And they include plenty of
reasons for loss of power not caused by the crankshaft!

However, my concerns include, reliability, maintainability, and eventual
replacement; and I think you understand my point.

At this point, the Jabiru 3300 is the only engine that really looks to me
like a promising replacement; and I really don't know its service record.
However, albeit at a higher dollar price, its features seem to preserve:
1)
similar or lighter weight, 2) similar or higher power, 3) six cylinder
smoothness, 4) reasonably slow idle, and 5) similar dimmensions.
Additional
benefits are designed in dual ignition and an updraft intake system,
similar
to Lycoming and Continental, which should be more resistant to ice.


Peter..........

Since you answered seriously, I will too. I can agree on the higher price
and on #1-3 and #5. I don't understand #4 - do Corvairs idle unreasonably
high? The dual ignition is good if the Jabiru 3300 truly has two stand-alone
systems. The intake direction is irrelevant if the Corvair is fuel-injected
or has a heated intake manifold. Updraft carbs are a lot better at
preventing fire as well. The small Continentals will ice up if you look at
them cross-eyed even with updraft intake.

Rich S.


  #49  
Old January 24th 06, 10:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Corvair conversion engines - cracked crank link

In article , "Peter Dohm" wrote:

At this point, the Jabiru 3300 is the only engine that really looks to me
like a promising replacement; and I really don't know its service record.
However, albeit at a higher dollar price, its features seem to preserve: 1)
similar or lighter weight, 2) similar or higher power, 3) six cylinder
smoothness, 4) reasonably slow idle, and 5) similar dimmensions. Additional
benefits are designed in dual ignition and an updraft intake system, similar
to Lycoming and Continental, which should be more resistant to ice.

Peter


Why would an updraft intake system be more resistant to ice?

Heat rises, so I would expect a downdraft system, mounted above the engine
block, to be more resistant to icing.
  #50  
Old January 24th 06, 10:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Corvair conversion engines - cracked crank link


"Rich S." wrote in message
. ..
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
Yes. I know that they do, and new design engines are notorious; as are
design improvements, changes of supplier, etc. And they include plenty

of
reasons for loss of power not caused by the crankshaft!

However, my concerns include, reliability, maintainability, and eventual
replacement; and I think you understand my point.

At this point, the Jabiru 3300 is the only engine that really looks to

me
like a promising replacement; and I really don't know its service

record.
However, albeit at a higher dollar price, its features seem to preserve:
1)
similar or lighter weight, 2) similar or higher power, 3) six cylinder
smoothness, 4) reasonably slow idle, and 5) similar dimmensions.
Additional
benefits are designed in dual ignition and an updraft intake system,
similar
to Lycoming and Continental, which should be more resistant to ice.


Peter..........

Since you answered seriously, I will too. I can agree on the higher price
and on #1-3 and #5. I don't understand #4 - do Corvairs idle unreasonably
high? The dual ignition is good if the Jabiru 3300 truly has two

stand-alone
systems. The intake direction is irrelevant if the Corvair is

fuel-injected
or has a heated intake manifold. Updraft carbs are a lot better at
preventing fire as well. The small Continentals will ice up if you look at
them cross-eyed even with updraft intake.

Rich S.


The Corvairs have a very good idle. But the Rotax, which is one of the
possible replacements I would include on my list, seems to have a minimum
operating speed restriction. On a KR-2, which has no flaps, I suspect it
would result in very flat final approaches.

You are right about the small Contintals, time has gone by and I just plain
forgot.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Book Review: Converting Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft , Finch Paul Home Built 0 October 18th 04 10:14 PM
P-3C Ditches with Four Engines Out, All Survive! Scet Military Aviation 6 September 27th 04 01:09 AM
What if the germans... Charles Gray Military Aviation 119 January 27th 04 12:20 AM
Corvair Engine Conversion Breakin Success Dick Home Built 1 January 11th 04 03:06 PM
Corvair Conversion Gig Giacona Home Built 17 October 27th 03 10:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.