Non certified engines.

("Stuart Grey" wrote)
You know, I think some of those urls are for toy RC engines?

Two more options for a ...CriCri:
http://www.rcshowcase.com/html/engines/zdz420B4.html
4 cylinder (2 stroke. Oil/gas)

35 HP/19 lbs. Higher revving high output 2 cycle (5500-6000rpm).


http://www.rcshowcase.com/html/engines/rcs400.html
5 cylinder 400 cc FOUR STROKE Radial Gas Engine.

23 HP/22 lbs. RCS 400 cc (5 cylinder Radial 4-stroke) does have more torque
(3800-4000rpm) and can swing a much bigger prop than the (35HP) ZDZ 420 cc
(4 cylinder 2-stroke).

This all according to an e-mail I received back from the company. Nice
fellow.


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote

Click Engines ...Click on "Classic" engine pic ...Anything above 200 (3W
200iB2TS)

http://www.3w-modellmotoren.com/english/www_3W_Modellmotoren_com.html?../motoren/index_classic_en.html~main

Wow! I had not looked at some of the big stuff, lately. The two at the
bottom are rated at 60 HP!

Again, I say, WOW!!!
--
Jim in NC

About 15 years ago, I calculated that included in the price of each new
certified 150 hp engine was about $10,000 for liability insurance. I expect
that price has gone up, but I am just guessing. So, everything else being
equal. you could take that engine and sell it without certification for
substantially less money.

But, is the non-certified engine the same as the certified one? Are you
willing to bet your life on it?

Certified engines fail. They also run out of gas and fly into mountains.
Uncertified engines can be built to higher standards than certified
engines - but they need not be. If you use an uncertified engine, you do
not have the FAA looking over your shoulder to assure the engine is build
strong and safe. So, you are the responsible person.

On the other side of the coin, it costs a lot of money to certify things, so
a certified engine may be using older and heavier technology. In the end,
there is no easy answer. It is a matter of selecting priorities.

Colin

Certified engines fail. They also run out of gas and fly into mountains.
Uncertified engines can be built to higher standards than certified
engines - but they need not be. If you use an uncertified engine, you do
not have the FAA looking over your shoulder to assure the engine is build
strong and safe. So, you are the responsible person.

On the other side of the coin, it costs a lot of money to certify things, so
a certified engine may be using older and heavier technology. In the end,
there is no easy answer. It is a matter of selecting priorities.

Colin



Ahhhh. The blessing of building an experimental plane in the good ol
USA.....

And of course I fly my water cooled plane almost every day and so far
it hasn't killed me.. I should add no one in their right mind should
install an engine this powerful in a plane that small...

Pics of the beast are on my web site...

www.haaspowerair.com

Ben

Montblack wrote:
("Rich S." wrote)

Neither the FAA, the gummint, nor we really care if you build an
airplane out of concrete and power it with a string of firecrackers.



Test Flights in the Mojave:

Flight #1. Ladyfingers are nice but Black Cats would be better...

Flight #2. Black Cats are good but Cherry bombs would be better...

Flight #3. Cherry bombs are good but M-80's would be better...

Flight #4. M-80's are good but dynamite would be better...


Montblack
How many Black Cats to power that flying brick? Yup, a brick. g

The Orion few (or would have flown) off the shockwave of nukes... ;o)
It was basically a 10 story high bulding shaped like a round nose bullet.

Tony

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?

"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.

Quite a few Rotax engines are water cooled, and some of those are
certificated.

FAA rules stipulate that a homebuilt must complete a 40 hours testing
phase before it can be operated as a "normal" airplane. Before you can
even begin that it has to be approved by an FAA inspector who will
confirm that it's airworthy.

So if you can do that, it does't matter if you want an "airplane", car,
motorcycle, lawnmower, or boat engine powering it. If it will fly and
fly safely, then you're good to go.

Personally, I'll be using a Corvair auto conversion in my project when
the time comes.

Michael Gaskins
Stuart Grey wrote:
Okay, I don't know diddly; I've just caught the airplane bug. So, I'm
asking...

My buddy went out and spent multi tens of thousands of dollars on an
airplane engine. Lycoming, I think it was. Seems kinda pricy, but I
understand that most of that cost is testing, no iron.

I note that there was a lot of talk in the newsgroup and some books out
on Amazon.com on using non-certified engines.

How wise is that? The FAA really allows that, huh? If I had a noose in a
tree, and called it an experimental airplane, would the FAA let me fly
it? Probably not if the nose was over a populated area, huh? Just wondering.

VW engines are mentioned, I suspect because water cooled engines would
be too heavy for small airplanes, and it would introduce additional
cooling failure modes.

I guess I'm not smart enough to even know what questions to ask. So,
please discuss engines, so I can read the thread.

Is there a FAQ for this newsgroup?

"Mike Gaskins" wrote in message
oups.com...

FAA rules stipulate that a homebuilt must complete a 40 hours testing
phase before it can be operated as a "normal" airplane. Before you can
even begin that it has to be approved by an FAA inspector who will
confirm that it's airworthy.

This is not true. The FAA does not certify airworthiness. The manufacturer
(you) does that. The FAA only checks to see if its requirements are met in
regards to registration, placarding, N numbers, etc.

Rich S.

"Rich S." wrote in message
. ..
"Mike Gaskins" wrote in message
oups.com...

FAA rules stipulate that a homebuilt must complete a 40 hours testing
phase before it can be operated as a "normal" airplane. Before you can
even begin that it has to be approved by an FAA inspector who will
confirm that it's airworthy.

This is not true. The FAA does not certify airworthiness. The manufacturer
(you) does that. The FAA only checks to see if its requirements are met in
regards to registration, placarding, N numbers, etc.

Rich S.


If that is the case then why do they want be to have all of the access ports
open on the aircraft? I ask this because I've not yet been through an
inspection.