The death of the A-65?

wrote

I see way more cars at the side of the road than I hear of
airplanes having engine failures, even with making allowance for the
many times more cars than airplanes in operation.

Most have exceeded their reliable life, IMHO.

Aircraft engines fail
mostly for the following reasons:
1. Out of gas. Not an engine fault, is it?

Can't argue that point! g

2. Carb ice. That's a pilot's mistake, not the engine's.

True, but with *modern* fuel injection, that isn't an issue.

3. Low oil pressure. Usually due to running out of oil, either because
it wasn't checked and topped up, or because the engine wasn't looked
after and it leaked out through the same leaks it had been leaking from
for several years, or through a blown oil hose that had been in service
for 28 years. They are 5-year items.

Auto engines don't use oil in the quanities that airplane engines do,
partially because they are aircooled, and have to have looser fits. Auto
engies with less than 1500 hours on them don't use a quart between oil
changes.

4. Mechanical failure. This come is a wide variety of expensive noises,
and most of them have to do with poor maintenance, or infrequent
flying, which causes corrosion internally that leads to the failure.
Mechanical failure is actually relatively rare. It's the first three
causes above that bring most airplanes down where engines are
concerned. Remember that most crashes are weather or pilot induced and
have nothing to do with the engine at all.

No arguement, on most of these points... except what you cite as "relatively
rare."

As far as blowing jugs or breaking rods or hanging valves: Try
making an auto conversion run at 75 power for a few hours and see what
begins to happen. They weren't designed for that,

Sorry, I don't buy that. Production engines for some manufacturers go
through testing far more severe than what an air cooled airplane engine has
to go through. Corky Scott needs to post his 'ole "test story" again.

and the guys who
successfuly convert and run them for several hundred hours have had to
get around a LOT of problems.

Mostly due to accesories failures, I'll bet.

Dan (Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, homebuilder, and Flight
instructor, with installing a Soob in GlaStar experience)

IMHO, soobs have weaknesses, and are putting out more power to weight (and
displacement) than what is reasonable to expect. Some are using them, with
fairly good result, but it would not be my first choice.

As a side note, I don't think that everyone flying lycosarus engines are
flying a death trap. I just think that it is time for engine development to
move on. The problem is (of course) that there is not high enough demand
(in numbers of units produced) for the manufacturers to get the development
costs paid off.

By the way, how did your installation go? Any stories to share?
--
Jim in NC

"Tony Goetz" wrote

It had 156,000+ miles on it
and had been used since '91 to drive LA freeways and side streets on a
daily
basis.

So obviously, it was
pushing the end of its useful life and had been driven hard. It was meant
to
be an economy car.

Maybe the failure was a fluke, maybe it was perfectly reasonable given the
car's life. But when I hear about Geo conversions for homebuilts now, I
tend
to look the other way. Sure it can be done, but it was enough to keep me
away from them.

That is about like flying a lycosarus 3500 hours, or more. Not a good idea,
if you life may depend on the engine.

Most people would have overhauled the airplane engine, way before then.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote:

It is time for people to get modern engine's installation details worked
out, and use them. Design a system; buy some of it, and engineer the rest.
Test the hell out of it while on the ground. Put it in a plane and fly it.
Some are doing this, with varied results, but usually the engine itself
failing is not the problem.

Such an undertaking is not for everyone. I hope I get a chance to do it.

Soapbox off. g
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yada, yada, yada.
The blind still leading the blind, I see.

Please DO get busy doing SOMETHING....
besides blowing smoke up starry-eyed
auto-conversion tailpipe droolers.


Unka' BOb - 9000 reliable Lycosaurus hours

By the way, how did your [Soob] installation go? Any stories to share?

It was a major headache. The engine mounting was especially
knotty, since all the acceptable mount points are at the front (former
rear) of the engine, and there were 17 separate tubes welded together
when it was done. The average Lyc has 9. The redrive (RAF) put the prop
shaft centerline above the engine, so the engine had to sit low in the
cowling (a Glastar O-240 fit, modified) and there was no room for
mufflers of any size and effectiveness. Went through 7 iterations of
those, trying to get it quiet enough that we couldn't hear it flying 8
miles away. Cooling, on the other hand, came off well: I mounted the
radiator (full-sized Subaru) on a plenum, angled from the firewall so
that the only exit for air entering the cowl was through the rad. The
top of the rad was against the firewall, the bottom 7 or 8 inches out
from the lower edge. A lip on the cowl made sure of a low-pressure zone
there. That rad had to fit behind the engine and mount. The cooling
system has a thermostat on the inlet side of the engine, rather than
the outlet as in North American vehicles, and relied on return coolant
temp from the heater core to tell it when to open. So the core had to
have full flow all the time, making the cabin warm, or it had to have
bypass flow, which I did by making a four-ported shaft/poppet valve
controlled by a panel cable. Not simple at all.
The carb had been modified for manual mixture control, with an
EGT in the system, and a burned valve resulted when the mixture was set
too lean. I found that the valve (four per cylinder) was about the size
of a lawnmover engine valve, very thin and with a slender stem, and
would burn very easily compared to a Lyc's robust valve. Subaru could
get away with that using computerized fuel injection, which would make
sure the mixture never got that lean, but the FI system weighed 40
pounds, so had been ditched in favour of a carb. Since leaning was now
limited, the thing wasn't all that economical. Further, the engine had
to be cruised around 4700 RPM while redline was 5600, so cruise speed
suffered. The engine life would be low indeed if it was cruised close
to redline as we do with Lycs (Redline 2700, say, for an O-320, with
cruise at 2500 or so). Temperatures and fuel burn weren't good at high
RPMs.
I maintain full-time six Lycs, From O-235 to O-540, in a
flight-training operation (just about the worst environment for an
engine) and we have VERY few problems.

Dan

Not to be unkind, Jim, but I believe that if auto engines were
run at the same continuous high power settings as aircraft
engines you'd see a lot more of the same kind of failures
as aircraft engines have had.

True, there is an emphisis on light weight for aircraft engines,
but the real bitch is the power load.

Having said that, I mostly design for VW engines.
Go figure...

Richard

"Barnyard BOb -" wrote

Yada, yada, yada.
The blind still leading the blind, I see.

Please DO get busy doing SOMETHING....
besides blowing smoke up starry-eyed
auto-conversion tailpipe droolers.


Unka' BOb! You HAVE truly risen from the dead!

I kept on wondering how long it would be, until you responded to the auto
engine bit. I missed it by two days!

How do you like our new MrV? Some case, huh?

So what'cha been up to, lately? Chasing little girls, or something?
--
Jim in NC

"Scott" wrote in message
...
Thanks, Dan. Well stated. I agree. I am NOT against auto engines in
airplanes (I think Jim Morgan may have thought that is what I was
saying). I feel like you do, it IS possible, but most of the articles I
have read sound like it took some dinking around to get everything
working acceptably, but it eventually was done.

No doubt, the devil is in the details for auto engine conversions. It can
be done, and has been done. If it was done more, it would become even more
reliable.

What we need is someone to get the bugs worked out, the put out plans on how
to do it, successfully. If it was done like that, it would be affordable;
to the type of person wanting to take these projects on, cost is everything.

There are some companies putting out reliable, complete auto engine
conversions, but the price is so high, they are over some people's engine
budgets.
--
Jim in NC

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Scott wrote:
Because they're TOO GOOD to waste them in a genset, irrigation pump or
welder.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Actually I'm having you on. Continentals were used in many military
gensets and GPUs. There was a flat twin using C-85 jugs that was
produced in large numbers for a dedicated Army radio genset giving B+
and heater voltages for a specific transmitter truck and a O-470
derivative used in a genset used by MASH units. Lycs were used in lots
of ground ramp applications and in an airdroppable rescue boat. They
were all pains in the ass and Uncle Sugar got rid of them forthwith.
Liquid cooled en-bloc engines were far more reliable and that's why
split crankcases and bolt on one piece jugs left general purpose engine
design circa 1925 or so.

Ever seen a Rotax 912?


Why do you say the C-85 should be reproduced rather than the A-65? Lots
of restored "antiques" used the A-65...Luscombe, Aeronca, Taylorcraft,
Piper, etc.

If you were "going to build a homebuilt" as you say, which indicates to
me you haven't or aren't planning to build a homebuilt, why are you
hanging around a homebuilt newsgroup, offering advice on something you
have no experience with? Ever fly behind an A-65 (or in front of one if
it's a pusher)?

I think I soloed behind a 75 that started out as a 65. I worked in
FBO's and once for about three weeks in the Cessna Pawnee Ave. plant. I
quit because I literally couldn't take the heat-there was no A/C and it
was August in Wichita. Wichita was the most depressing piece of ****
fundamentalist-ridden town I have ever lived in my life, besides, no
one flies. 90% of the production staff not only weren't pilots, they
had never been up in the plane they built and had no desire to do so.

Most of the aircraft with 65s originally later got upgrades and many
got electrical systems and engins with generator and starter pads. Then
people got stupid and tore out the wiring, and reconverted them to the
original configuration so they lost lights and radios and could fly
around like an ultralight. If the airframe is certificated or STC'd to
take the 85 you are dumb to forfeit the additional horsepower, unless
you have a source for cheap "white gas" the 65 would burn and the later
ones wouldn't. As you know the 65, 75, 85 and up are largely the same
engine. I think the 65 has lower compression pistons.

A-65 and A-75 have the same compression ratio: 6.3:1. A-75 has drilled
rods and a few more simple mods. It turns faster, which theoretically
gives 10 more HP -- at 2600 RPM. If you use a 72CK42 prop from an
A-65 on an A-75, all it will do is deliver 65 HP @ 2300 rpm at sea
level. It won't do 75 HP.

Some airplanes are really best off with this engine, but designing a
new one around one today is no more sensible than using an OX-5,

I'm kinda wondering how much you know about these great little engines
because they are quite modern and deliver great power for their
vintage, with hydraulic lifters, superb reliability, and plenty of
power output for their size and weight. A-65's never had starters,
except on the A-65-12, which is a very rare Mooney MIte engine, and
nearly impossible to find any more. Not that it hasn't been done but
I have never heard of converting an A-65 to an electric starter.
You'd have to find a rear case for it, and they are rare as hen's
teeth.

Got a photo?

C-85's are low compression too, and will burn mogas. So will C-90's,
O-200's, and O-300's. None of them make more than about 7 atmospheres
of compression, meaning they are 80 octane engines, suitable for
regular mogas and a little additive to keep the valve seats lubed.

wrote:

Not*that*it*hasn't*been*done*but
I have never heard of converting an A-65 to an electric starter.
You'd have to find a rear case for it, and they are rare as hen's
teeth.

http://mdlaurent.free.fr

Got a photo?

--
Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

After you get the A-65 starter only rear case, you need the special conical
mag gears made of unotainium.


--
Cy Galley - Aeronca Aviators Club
Newsletter Editor & EAA TC
www.aeronca.org
Actively supporting Aeroncas every day

"Philippe Vessaire" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Not that it hasn't been done but
I have never heard of converting an A-65 to an electric starter.
You'd have to find a rear case for it, and they are rare as hen's
teeth.

http://mdlaurent.free.fr

Got a photo?

--
Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬