+++ #193 Subject: Re: Engine choice From: Bruce A. Frank >Has anyone gotten as far as engine choice yet? I am considering a Chev >V6 5.3 LTR 200HP anyone know if there is a redrive conversion for this >engine? Did you mean to type 4.3L? This is a good choice from a power output standpoint though a little heavy--it has been installed in several planes similar to the Bearhawk(the V-6 STOL, Alaskan Bushmaster, and the 2+2 Sportsman). Contact Johnny at Northwest Aero for PSRU. He also supplies engines. The Ford 3.8L/4.2L V-6 is also another good choice. Johnny's site address: http://www.northwest-aero.com or email him at: Johnny nwaer-@northwest-aero.com +++ #360 Subject: The 400# Question From: Mike Meador 400 Pounds - When you think about it - that is a lot of weight. Bob came up with the 400 pound figure based on the heaviest aircraft engine that is suitable for the design. The conversion should not weigh more than 400 pounds. That figure does not include the propeller. Most conversions that we see are HEAVY and bulky. The Bearhawk will fly fine with a lot of weight up front as long as you counter it with weight in the back. All this weight is cutting into your useful load. Don't think that a lot of horse power is going to make up for all that weight - keep the conversion in the proper range (150 - 260). With the O-540 design in Proto II the cg range is a bit too far forward (we don't have the battery in place yet) for the first flight. We will put 50 pounds of lead in the baggage compartment for the first hop. As for the one degree increase in the wing angle of attack, well it does have at least one more degree. Mostly that one degree is in the landing gear. The Bearhawk was signed off Tuesday by the FAA. We should have the first flight as soon as the weather breaks. I'll let you guys know as soon as it happens. +++ #372 Subject: #400 From: Russ Erb > with all the talk about engine weight,I was wondering the general > concensis on using the Franklin 220.the good things I have heard about > it seem to outweigh the negatives.I think it would be a good fit.I'm > interested in your thoughts. At one time I was seriously considering using the Franklin 220. It is a very good engine--if you can get one. "New" ones are built by PZL in Poland, and last I heard, the Poles are still trying to grasp those capitalist concepts like delivery schedules and customer service. In short, consider if you get one, how easy will it be to get parts? Can you find a shop that will repair it when it needs it? At work we have a Czechoslovakian glider (Blanik L-23) and it's not easy to get parts. Takes months. Don't take what a Franklin dealer tells you at face value. As him for a list of his customers and ask them. If he won't give you a list of customers, run the other way--he's trying to hide something. +++ #377 Subject: Conversions From: Mike Meador For all you auto conversion folks, you might want to check out the following web site. If I were going to convert an auto engine I might look at this one as a candidate. http://www.sae.org/automag/newenginereview/gm.htm Let me know what you think. +++ #380 Subject: Re: Float Use & Engine Choices From: Bruce A. Frank >With all the recent discussion on engine choice I feel compelled to ask >why noone has mentioned some of the newer aluminum block V-8's, such as >the generation 3 small block from GM. These should (although I cannot >confirm this.) meet the 400 lb weight limit I have seen referenced. >Are builders staying away from the V-8 because of the slight loss of >legroom this would cause? V-8 engines can be fit to a firewall such as the Bearhawks. It would require no change in the location of the firewall relative to passenger placement(just other components would have to be adjusted--requires some effort but is not that difficult). But, that being said, though I could find no weight mentioned, it is not likely that this aluminum block Chev would qualify as a "light weight". A Ford 3.8, Chevy 4.3 or a Soob SVX produce equal or better HP than that Chev and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the V-6s FWF weight is lower ( and a heck of a lot cheaper).(The Ford 3.8L gets 200 Horses, the 4.3 Chev about 230, and the Soob, according to Gar, produces about 250 hp---all of these are very compact packages.) One last point about this engine, if someone gave me one I would make it fit, but overhead cam 90 degree V-8 engines are difficult to get inside a cowling without drag complicating bumps and bulges +++ #413 Subject: renault diesel From: amsp- i was reading about the new engine this month.i wrote a emailto renault for more information.hopefully the price wont be to bad.it is 200 hp.but has alot more torque then the gas engine.so it can swing a large prop with alot of bit on it.acording to what i read it will burn less fuel(greater range),the fuel is less expensive to.and the TBO is supossed to be longer cause the fuel also lubes the cyl walls when it runs.when i hear more info about the engine i will post what i find.if anyone else has interest in this engine please write back +++ #418 Subject: Re: Renault diesel From: Steele, David A If they ever get any of them to market, the diesels might be rather interesting. The biggest problems that I see are that you would be paying new engine prices (ouch!), which could get expensive real fast, and they aren't available yet. The research I've done does show that they are cheaper to operate than a standard aircraft engine however (according to company propaganda, anyway). On the other hand, if you're building an airplane from scratch, and don't have a really low serial number, having to wait a few years for the engines to reach the market might not be much of a problem. : ) Zoche (http://www.zoche.de/) has been developing one for years. However, it still appears to be years away, if ever. They say they will only sell certified engines, which of course will make them more expensive. They also only have 150hp or 300hp, with no offerings in between. They claim to be going through the cert. process for JAR & FAA certs, and say they won't offer an engine until this is complete. I'm sure there will be great fanfare if this engine makes it to market, although most of the magazines seem to have lost interest in it now. Deltahawk is testing a 200hp diesel as well. Their website is http://www.deltahawkengines.com/. Anyone seen their offering at Oshkosh or anywhere? Again, looks nice, but no product is available yet. They seem to be aiming more at the experimental category, whereas Zoche wants to go head to head with the cert's. They are offering a no-cost chance to save yourself a production slot. When the delivery date and price are fixed after the first production engine is built, you have to decide whether to commit to buying one (and put down money) or not. The info that I last found on the Renault offering was sketchy and very preliminary. One neat thing about diesel's is their ability to burn some weird stuff in a pinch. I personally would stick with Jet-A, but in theory they'll burn mo-diesel, and even kerosene. If you were stuck out in the bush, and these were the fuels available, that could be kind of nice. +++ #442 Subject: Re: Renault diesel From: Russ Erb For anyone considering a diesel for their aerospace vehicle, I suggest you read the article at http://www.eaa1000.av.org/newsletr/9901nltr.htm#Diesel +++ #447 Subject: new egroup for franklin engines From: amsp- i have started a new group for franklin engines.these engines are used alot in stinson aircraft.i have invited people from the stinso club to join the group.hopefully they will.i am also planning on asking the pzl franklin company if they canhave a tech person join the group.that way we can get evenmore information about this engine. from what i am reading in custom planes alot of used lycs and continental engines are disapearing. and new ones are very expensive.i see the 220hp franklin engine at 18k a real bargin for a new one.i have a price sheet from pzl that has the new prices and authorized dealers in the usa.if you know anyone using a franklin or planning on using a franklin please join the new group. franklinengines-subscrib-@egroups is the egroup name +++ #448 Subject: Re: new egroup for franklin engines From: Float-by Shooter > i have started a new group for franklin engines.these engines are used > alot in stinson aircraft.i have invited people from the stinso club to > join the group.hopefully they will.i am also planning on asking the > pzl franklin company if they canhave a tech person join the There is a franklin discussion list run by New Aviation (PZL importer), and several of us are already members. I haven't heard much from it lately though. http://www.newaviation.com/ +++ #523 Subject: franklin engine group From: amsp- i just want people to know that i have started a new group on egroups for franklin engines.the group is starting to grow in size.franklin engine company in colorodo has joined the group.they are one of the 3 importers of the pzl franklin engine. i am also pleased to announce that pzl franklin company has also joined the group.they said they be happy to answer any ?s that people have about the engine. if there is anyone who is looking for a new affordable certified aircraft engine think about the franklin 220hp 6cyl.if you want to learn more about this engine feel free to join the group and ask the importer and the factory that makes them directly. subscribe to franklinengines-subscribe@egroups.com +++ #536 Subject: v6 engine From: T & E Yeomans I modified an all aluminum block v6 from a ford Taurus. I am using a double set of poly belts on it. I also used steel pulleys instead of the aluminum ones. I have the plane to a point that I could do a rough W/B on it. I found even with the heavier pulleys I was very close to the weight of the prototype and the cg was just forward of envelope with light pilot and min fuel. I plan on putting the battery behind in the luggage area. With full fuel max passenger and luggage it will be aft cg so I thought the weight of all the conversion was real acceptable. I am sure that the chevy 4.3 will be much heavier but keeping it back by the firewall helps. +++ #612 Subject: franklin info From: spel10411- Below are some answers to your questions that were posted on the eGroup plus some more info that hopefully you'll find valuable. Franklin Aircraft Engines, Inc. located in Fort Collins, Colorado is a PZL/Franklin Engine Distributor as well as a OEM Distributor for all the engine accessories to support the Franklin, such as: Slick magnetos, Precision carburetors, Electrosystem alternators/regulators, Sky-Tec starters, Hartzell / McCauley / Sensenich - Propellers, Governors, Sigma Tek vacuum pumps, Concorde batteries, etc.... Also, we have the STC's in production for installing the 6A-350, 220 HP engine in the Cessna 170 A/B, 172's, 175's and Stinson 108-1,-2 & -3. Horsepower: The 6A-350-C1R is advertised as a 205/220 Horsepower rated engine. The 205 HP rating is in Metric while the 220 HP rating is in SAE. Both HP ratings are at 2800 RPM. The 6A-350-C1R is a true 220 HP engine. Oil Cooler: We recommend installing approx. a 19 row oil cooler for the 220 engine. The oil cooler can be mounted either below the oil pan or in the baffles (usually behind cylinder #1.) For added cooling, you can fabricate a shroud that fits around the oil pan with cold air forced on the oil pan. This will drop the oil temp. around 10 degrees F. Contact us for purchasing oil coolers. Baffles: We can provide a Baffle Starter Kit for those working on homebuilt projects. This will save the homebuilder a lot of time. If you install the oil cooler in the baffles, you may want to provide cold air to the heat muff shrouds from a different source rather than from the baffles. You can install a cold air box below the crankshaft that will pick up air from the front cowl and provide air to the heat muff shrouds. Light Plane Maintenance Article: For those who wish to receive a copy of the article about Franklin Engines in Light Plane Maintenance, we'll be glad to provide you a copy. Please call or e-mail us. 180 HP engine: The 180 HP engine is obsolete and has not been manufactured for some time. The 150/165 HP engines fall into this category as well, although some parts from the 220 will work in the 150/165/180 engines. The 220 HP engine is readily available as well as replacement parts. We stock most of the common replacement parts for the 220 HP. Accessories: All new engine accessories are readily available for the 6 cylinder Franklins. We can provide you the best pricing for Slick Magnetos, Sky-Tec lightweight starters, light weight alternators, new carburetors, new propellers, new governors, vacuum pumps, etc. Homebuilts: The 220 Franklin will make an excellent engine choice for the Bearhawk. From the pictures we saw with the 200 Lyc. in the Bearhawk, there will be plenty of access to the engine accessories with the Franklin installed. We have helped out several homebuilders with such items as engine mounts, cooling baffles, exhaust systems, brackets, etc. Many of the parts we manufacture for the Cessna/Stinson STC's will easily adapt to homebuilt applications with no or minor modification. +++ #749 Subject: Re: wieght and props From: budd davisson And speaking of weight, two thoughts: 1. 50 pounds doesn't sound like much until you think of it in terms of bags of cement. Do we need to carry a useless bag of cement or two aloft everytime we fly? Wieght makes more difference than horsepower. 2. It doesn't make sense to try to keep the weight off the airplane when we, ourselves are a cement bag over the limit. Two 20 overwieght people equal almost one cement bag. If we keep that weight off, we live longer which means we can fly longer and isn't that entire idea? Having said that, getting rid of my personal cement bag is my number one 2000 resoution. 'Have no idea where it came from. Aliens must have stuck it on me. On fixed pitch props: Talk to Hale Wallace at Steen Aerolabs (Skybolt guy, 828-652-7382). He puts a lot of fixed pitch 260's in Skybolts and is the Hoffman importer. Talk to him abut both fixed and constant speed props. If serious about bush flying, a composite or wooden prop is not only light, but you can bolt a spare inside the fuselage. Splinter a prop on a boulder and the crankshaft will be okay and you can still fly out with the spare. Bear in mind that wooden props will almost always cost 100-150 rpm over a metal one of the same pitch. Also, even sensenich will only guarantee the pitch within a couple of inches on a wood prop. The custom prop guys can do better than that. Kimballs were making props, but I don't know if they still are. Check them out at kjkimbal-@aol.com. They could also point you in the right direction. There are a lot of new fangled props out there, but that seems like a lousy place to experiment. The thought of loosing a blade and yanking the engine out of the mount isn't a pleasant one. +++ #824 Subject: 023 Progress and Lessons Learned From: William & Delinda Johnson My plan on putting a Continental O470 on my Bearhawk has been changed. Finding an engine mount - damaged or not - is not easy. Any found, even damaged, seem to run between $500 & $700. The Lycoming O540 seems easier to make an engine mount following Bob's newsletter. Also, Bingelis only talks about Lycomings! +++ #862 Subject: Re Bearhawk Pics From: Bill Cox Awesome!! I may have to go back to the shop for a couple of more hours tonight. I was at Dallas Air Salvage last week and they have 3 mid time 540s for $10000 to $14000. +++ #867 Subject: Bob Barrows 540? From: robert gaddy Has anyone asked if Bob could/would build up a 540? Certification not required. +++ #871 Subject: Radial engined hawk From: budd davisson Okay, group (mostly, Russ), you pushed me over the edge. How, aren't you all proud of yourselves ;-) I wasn't going to say anything about this but people keep talking about the radial engined 'Hawk...: I'm working a deal with another builder (name to be released in a week or so after we get together to finalize details) in which we're going to build the Desert Hawk, which is what The Redhead and I have named the radial engine Bearhawk. It'll have some minor structural mods and some tiny profile changes (tail shape, windshield), otherwise it's going to be your basic 360 hp, round motored Bearhawk. With luck, we'll start cutting metal this month. Yee-haw! Anybody want to buy our Cessna 140A with a 500 hour 0-200 in it? That's where the seed money is coming from. $20.5K and it's a really good airplane. +++ #874 Subject: Pics, O540, and 023 Update From: William & Delinda Johnson Nice Pics! I now have my motivation for this year. Need a side shot to really show the rate of climb . . . Last week was my lucky week. I found an O540, engine mount, full accessories (including muffler), and propellor (fixed pitch). No damage and engine was new in 1976. Never been rebuilt with 2178 hours. All for only $4K . . . I am going to sell/trade the propeller for a constant speed - something off a high power piper (Comanche or Cherokee Six). Probably cost around $2.5k in addition to my propellor. So, assuming I do the engine rebuilt (working on my A&P license - engine part), and no major problems are found with crank or case, I should be able to have a zero since major, 2178 since new, O504 with constant speed propellor, lightweight starter and alternator, all for under $10,000! Dallas Air Salvage may be a little high for their engines. If you follow trade-a-plane online, you can see the postings before print. I checked daily and found this engine immediately after posting. He received numerous calls AFTER I had already purchased within 2 hours of posting - sight unseen. I now have the engine and everything looks good. Well, gotta go make some parts and order some material from Dillsburg. +++ #899 Subject: new builder From: budd davisson > I've been looking at a mazda 20B turbo. Do I have to start thinking > about mods already or can I wait for the fuselage? As a first time builder, don't even think about using anything but an aircraft engine. The time and energy involved in getting an automotive conversion sorted out is enormous and non-productive. I'm also not convinced you'll save enough to make it worth while. A lot of folks are playing around with the Mazda and some are having some success, but you don't want "some" success, you want unqualified success. As crude and as they are, stick with an aircraft engine. At least you know how they work and you can find all sorts of help with them. There's a basic rule of homebuilding: don't be a pioneer. All that being said, just ignore the stuff I'm doing. Commonsense is in short supply in my household, besides this is a long way from my first project. +++ #905 Subject: Re: Mazda Engine ; was "new builder" From: bearhawke- > I've been looking at a mazda 20B turbo. Do I have to start thinking > about mods already or can I wait for the fuselage? I don't think you will need to make any modifications behind the firewall. A careful installation design of a 13B weighs no more than an O-360, the 20B weighs quite a bit more though so you may need to look at battery in the tail type mods. You'll need to study CG, thrustline, and radiator cooling design and contrast that with the standard CON/LYC configuration. Large area, thin cross section radiator mounted underneath the engine seems to be the prevailing thought on general layout for a Mazda. One thing you will have to study is the difference between the high cruise speed installations like the RV's and how to make the cooling work with a slower cruise speed Bearhawk. (You'll become friends with the term "Pressure recovery" ) In addition to the RV4's and 6's flying successful Wankel installations there is at least one guy with a Christavia that's been flying for I think more than 5 years with a 13B. His plugs up installation I think is now considered not the best way to go but his large area radiatior with course pitch fins mounted beneath the engine has proven to work well. His ship was no hangar queen, looks like he's flown the heck out of it and related to me stories of flying in and out of those back country strips in Idaho. For those unfamilar, the Christavia is a plans build design similar to the Bearhawk. There's a list devoted to development of Mazda wankels for aircraft use, lots of leading edge discussion going on there, contact me off list and I will get the information you need to get hooked up or go to the ACRE (AirCraftRotaryEngine) Web site at http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ This site and the mail list are run by Paul Lamar, if you are into Pontiacs of the TransAm era you will recognize his name as a colleague of Herb Adams back in the '70's. There have also been detailed case studies of Mazda Wankel installations presented in "Contact" magazine, a newletter devoted to auto engine conversions for aircraft use. You may want to spring for a subscription and get the back issues. Lots of good practical and theoretical info there. Fortunately for us, there has already been quite a bit of development in the area of Mazda conversions, plenty of successful proven hardware out there like PSRU's and engine control systems so its not like we're starting from scratch with this conversion idea. I project a total system cost for a 180HP 13B at a fraction of the cost of an O360. Long term, the recurring rebuild/overhaul costs on a 13B are miniscule compared with Lycoming overhauls. The intriguing aspect of the Mazda wankel for aircraft use is the characteristic of its "catastrophic" failure modes. If it looses coolant is won't seize, it just looses some sealing efficiency, you continue to fly at reduced power until you can land. Crankshaft failures are non-existant. Unlike piston engines, they will spin at 6000 crankshaft RPM until the sun burns out (rotors are only spinning at 2000 rpm , 1/3 crankshaft speed). I can think of no more elegant engine design for propeller driven light aircraft use. Of course, if you are one of those guys who have dollars squirting uncontrollably from your rear end, then by all means stick with the LYC/CON's for your Bearhawk ;^) +++ #911 Subject: CD...etc...Auto Conversions From: Tim Cramb I sent Russ the required $20usd today 'airmail'.....Also $16.usd to Bob for my Bearhawk Newsletter renewal @ 1.4734 exchange 36 U.S = 53.00cdn. A small price to pay, for living where it is presently a balmy -30c :-( Auto conversions....Although I think the slower STOL type airplanes like the BHawk are good Test Bed's (not Death Bed). You are probably (sooner or later) going to do a deadstick while in your development stage. My humble suggestion (based on a few deadsticks) is go with something that hopefully isn't going to challenge you, until you have time and handling confidence in your machine.... Have had the unfortunate experience of learning of the Death of an internet friend (Steve Parkham) no less from the internet. He had emailed me on Weds that he would be test flying his auto conversion (suzuki) that coming Saturday and would email the results....That email never arrived, Steve was killed in a post crash fire on that test flight....Only my opinion> Build confidence then experiment. +++ #912 Subject: Auto Conversions From: Bruce A. Frank Whew! Someone killed test-flying an auto conversion makes for a high impact post. Sort'a puts the fear in you. Was his death attributed to an engine out? Was the plane he was flying unstable or stall prone without power? The Bearhawk, from my discussions with Bob at Sun 'N Fun and with many who fly similar types (Christavia, 2+2 Sportsman, V-6 STOL, Alaskan Bushmaster, and even the PA-14), is a very stable platform. Straight forward in operation, docile in handling and forgiving to those of us who may be considered ham-handed (or footed). Many of us build because we like the process. Others build because we want to fly something unique. A good percentage build because we cannot afford to buy and maintain commercially manufactured aircraft. Selecting an automobile engine for the power plant is a choice that fits into all of the above pigeon holes. Ten years ago hinting that you were even thinking about using an automobile engine in your homebuild got you, at best, derisive remarks about your sanity and, at worst, a through flaming by Paul Lamar. Most now see that there are several choices that have proven themselves over these years with tens of hundreds of uneventful flying hours. And there are some individual craft flying with 1000+ hours on Chevys, Soobs, Mazdas, and even Fords. I, too, have lost friends to aircraft accidents. Most of them were flying behind Lycomings. One was flying an auto-conversion. On a first flight your life depends on the care and effort you've put into making sure all the systems in your experimental aircraft function as required. That is no different whether you use a mid-time Lycoming, a Continental you overhauled yourself or a converted automobile engine. Pay attention to the details, don't ignore other's mistakes (and successes) and training in type will help keep you safe through the somewhat dangerous first few hours flying your amateur-built plane. +++ #913 Subject: Re: Auto Conversions From: budd davisson Re: some opinions on auto conversions. It's a fact that the future of homebuilding and probably aviation in general lies in coming up with cheaper power plants. That's an area that has the possibility of completely killing the entire industry if something isn't done and auto engines is the logical way to go. In the last couple of years huge, huge strides have been made in all areas of engine conversion development. Unfortunately, it hasn't reached the point where an individual can plunk down his money and have a package arrive at his doorstep ready to be bolted to the mount that is both well proven and requiring a minimum of tinkering. The Bearhawk is an ideal mount to try engine conversion work on but it's the type of thing that should be approached with a truly experimental mindset as there is bound to be a period of sorting out. Nowadays there will probably be someone out there to help with the problems, but not always. Also, although the better, commercial grade conversions are well done, they still aren't truly proven and the price differential between them and a mid-time Lycoming isn't that great. Right now, it looks as if the Mazda and Isuzu guys are leading the pack although Blanton's V-6, which appears, and is, really crude does work. A few years back, Fred Geshwender and the EAA were talking about launching the definitive auto engine research program and prove the concept once and for all. Among the things wrong with the entire auto thing, is that too many decide to hop up or otherwise change the engine and the second they open that engine up they've compromised the research and quality built into it by the manufacture. A dead stock engine needs to be used. Also, most builders invariably take the engine apart at 200 or 400 hours to "see how it's doing." This invalidates the entire thing. What we need are programs in which the engine is bolted to an airplane and run for 1200-1500 hours without anything more than normal maintenace. We don't have enough uninterupted, long-run research on given installations to truly validate them. Unfortunately Geshwender died (his Hi-Vo chain reduction unit was the best of the bunch) and the project died with him. At the time they were focusing on the Ford Dura-tec series of engines as they go from a little four cylinder up to a medium displacement V-6 and they all have the same bellhousing. The concept was to be based on dead stock, just the way they came from the parts department, engines. Price was about $2,500. Entire package ready to fly would have been less than $6,000, 120-200 horse. For the guy just getting into homebuilding, added an experimental engine to an experimental airframe, may be a bit too much. However, to the mind that really likes solving problems, which is what homebuilding really is all about, it might be the way to go. However, that kind of project is a lot safer in areas like Nebraska than out here in the west where there is absolutely no place to land. I apologize, I didn't mean to make this thing so long. It's 0600 and I guess the first cup of coffee is kicking in. Forgive me. +++ #917 Subject: Re: Auto Conversions From: T & E Yeomans Hi Bud. I am using the all aluminum ford V6 and doing my own conversion. I was going originally with an AC engine but after talking to a lot of mechanics and seeing a lot of Lyc 360 blocks with rods through the side. I decided that with caution and recognizing the possible risks and building an experimental aircraft anyway why not. I have an all aluminum radiator built by a race car company, located under the engine like what the Wankel notes had said. I did a rough W&B and the engine and balance of the BearHawk was very close to the numbers that Bob had for his first proto. It gives the plane a deeper nose bowl but makes up some by a slimmer profile. Its nice to see a person that has a good variety of aircraft experience give support to the thought of the auto convert. +++ #918 Subject: Re: Auto Conversions From: budd davisson What reduction unit are you using and, when you say Ford all-aluminum V-6, that would be the Dura-Tec, right? +++ #919 Subject: Re: Ford Dura -Tech Engine From: Tom Kennedy I've got one in my 99 Taurus. With 8K miles on it I've already noted that the bearing on the water pump is talking to me. The water pump pulley rigging, I think that's the best way to describe it, would make a bad PSRU design and installation look good. Recent postings on the AIRSOOB "Subaru" list have lent significant credence to the probability that the engine rebuild is perhaps the most significant cause for concern with regard to failures. It appears that throwing a "know good" engine under the cowling is perhaps not as risky as a home builder rebuild. +++ #920 Subject: Re: Ford Dura -Tech Engine From: budd davisson I've got a Taurus too, with 80,000 miles, no problems. My theory on factory auto engines is that the factory spent billions of dollars to get its mechanical karhma just right and changing even one internal part upsets that. The Dura-tec torque curve is perfectly acceptable, as is the ignition. Going to some sort of crank0fired back-up ignition is the only thing it needs. If we had a Geschwender-type Morris chain reduction unti for it, I'd have no problem flying behind it. A bigger problem is rigging a controllable pitch prop. +++ #930 Subject: Re: Auto Conversions From: T & E Yeomans Bud. Yes the engine is the Dura Tec 3.0 24 valve from the 96 Taurus. I have built my own belt reduction. It is using the Gates Poly GT system 2 to 1 reduction. I am using a double belt each with about 160 hp rating. also used the stock steel pulleys to start. I know I have to pay the weight doctor but doesn't seem too bad to start. I looked at the Hi Vo system but was concerned about lubrication. I looked at several belt systems at air shows and used the parts I felt most comfortable with. The other reason for the belt drive is that it is visible at preflight to see if anything may be headed south. +++ #932 Subject: Certified Parts From: Tim Cramb Certified Parts.....or the "Million Dollar Markup" The discussion about Certified Parts.....A fellow Flying Club member 'Bob' was moving his Mooney up one whole model number. This Venture was budgeted for 50K but went well over 70K (1987$). While watching and criticizing Bob working on his new panel, I saw a brand new Mooney part in a beautiful Mooney plastic parts bag. Recognizing the light green part as in line Vacuum filter, I asked Bob "How Much $$$?".....the reply was lot's. Bob asked me to do a quick hardware run for him, I agreed while scooping the filter for the trip. Upon my return I handed over his stuff, the mooney parts bag and an extra $3.95 spare filtre....Yes twas a Fram G2 fuel filter, exactly. The Fram/G2 had been removed, but Mooney had failed to lift the part # F7004......Copywrite infringement?........Did Mooney pay big bucks to shut me up????? +++ #966 Subject: engine choices From: stephan pelgar I see that there is alot of thought going on in here about engine choices.personally i like the idea of the reliable aircraft engine.my ? is how many people in here has seen or flown behind a franklin engine.i know there is a lot of contriversy about the franklin engines.eithor people love them or hate them. any one who has used a franklin please let me know your thoughts about this engine. i still like the idea of the m14p radial engine.but there i would need some plans for this conversion cause im just a mechanic not a engineer. +++ #973 Subject: Re: engine choices From: budd davisson The 220 horse Franklin engine would be an excellent choice for the Bearhawk. Although all of my experience (which is pretty varied) with the engine is with the pre-PZL engines, I've always thought it to be one of the premier American flat engines. Right up there with the 540 in my eyes. It is presently being imported, but without accessories. I've been told Maule is once again evaluating it for re-introduction to their line. IF they do, then the support and supply questions will have been answered. It is a light, extremely powerful, torquey little beast and priced very low for what it is. It's only question is the current state of affairs with the importers, which I can't answer. The M-14 is the type of thing you get into only if you're serious about tinkering and pioneering. I'm not kidding myself that this thing isn't going to go smoothly and any flat engine would probably be cheaper in the long run. However, as I said before: common sense isn't a major factor in our household. +++ #975 Subject: Re: engine choices From: dean robert cramb A friend of my just repowered his cessna 170 with a new 220 hp Franklin. By the time he had bought all the accessories and a constant speed prop, the bill was 50 grand Canadian(about 30 US). I am sure you could find a much better price on a 0-360 or how about an IO-360 Continental. +++ #979 Subject: Re: engine choices From: Gary Danford A builder here in KC bought a Franklin and isn't too happy about it. Apparently there are some fittings that arn't standard. I don't know the details but look closely before you buy. +++ #980 Subject: Re: engine choices From: Gary Danford I am planning on a 0470, they are reliable, available, and inexpensive. I regularly see them for 6-10 thousand. Granted they need a serious look over as does any used engine but for dollars I don't think you can beat it. The C182 is know as one of the best out there and they have always used a 0470. +++ #981 Subject: Re: engine choices From: budd davisson Re: 0-470s Someone who is an expert out there ought to educate the rest of us about Continental vs Lycoming in used engines. My experience has been that the Continentals have serious cracking problems in the jugs while Lycomings are more forgiving of rough handling. How do you check an 0-470 for that kind of problem? Also, aren't all 470's bed mounted? That's no big deal but is there a drawing available for it? +++ #983 Subject: Re: engine choices From: dean robert cramb I own a 182 E with a 0-470R (the R is supposed to stand for reliable) however,It would not be my first choice.At every annual there are cylinders to do. Last summer I had a a cylinder brake in half .At the time I was flying over the Canadian Rockies.( Jasper )that resulted in a dead stick landing Valemont. On the bright side the 0-470 has a bottom end that is rock solid. and the parts are cheaper than lycoming parts. The IO-360 was used and is still is used by Maule. Also Cessna used it in the Skyhawk XP and was Derated from its 210 HP to 195HP. The IO-360 got its bad rap when Cessna used it to power the 337 mixmaster, The rear engine in this application suffered cooling problems resulting in assorted cracking. But the ray of sunshine is these engines are out there and reasonable priced. And you are allowed to work on them yourselves,ie homebuilt. Personally I have owned and flown 4 aircraft with Continental an 2 with Lycomings,3 Lycomings if you take my homebuilt into consideration. My first choice would be the Lycoming 0-360 after that it is a coin toss. When I built my first aircraft I did a sub. conversion with a LouRoss redrive but sold it deciding to go with a Cont. instead. One experiment at a time. Anyhow the can is open. +++ #984 Subject: Re: engine choices From: budd davisson Re: Continental/Lycoming I spend 99.9% of my time with my Pitts in the pattern teaching landings and have for 29 years. For instance, I've flown 19 hrs of dual since last Friday. I'm on my fourth engine, IO-360, 200 horse, which I think is the worse Lycoming ever built. I abuse them something fierce as I teach nothing but full power-off landings and always have. However, not one of my engines has failed to reach TBO (1400 hrs on the AEIO versions) and I've never done any repair, none, not even one cylinder on any of the engines. Every one of them, however, has had minor, aggravating oil leaks (usually governor, tach drives, etc). Still, they seem to be bullet proof. All I do is put full flow oil filters and air filters on them and change oil every 25 hours on the Hobbs, which is about 18 hours on the tach because of all the power-off time. They may be as crude as a '48 knuckle head Harley, but just like the Harley, Lycomings always seem to get the job done. +++ #991 Subject: Lyc Vs Cont Round 1 From: bearhwk27- Both Lycoming and Continental engines are beautiful works of art and excellent choices for an aircraft power plant. ( That should light up the e-mail ) I spent a number of years, a number of years ago employed by a major west coast rebuilder ( still in business and doing well ). My function was cylinders, cylinders and more cylinders, and some assembly. Although I will not take the resident expert position at the moment and will make further comments at a later date the following can be noted. Budd; your engines last a long time because you fly them often and maintain them. Your replacement engines are quality and old worn out parts are replaced. You are a shinning example, keep up the good work. Continentals : Cylinders crack, barrels crack, sparkplug holes crack, exhaust port at valve guides crack. Cranks crack and counterweights come apart. Light cases crack. Starters can be a nightmare. Lycomings: Eat up exhaust valves, piston pin plugs come apart, valve lifters are horrid, camshafts are the luck of the draw, rocker arm support bosses crack thru fall off, cases leak like a British car. Pushrods bend. Oh and then there are the light flange cranks and light cylinders. Klinkers can turn off all the fire in the cylinders quick. I have seen both makes of engines go to TBO spotless, and others not make it half way with a Top Overhaul to help.......Why........ the OPERATOR and MAINTENANCE. (oops! I did not mean to yell so loud ) My Bearhawk will have 6 cylinders. ( All New Cylinders) Continental 520 470 ( O or IO ), or IO 360 Lycoming 540 ( O or IO ) Donations Accepted PS. Does Editorial Time Count As Building Time? +++ #1014 Subject: Thrust Line From: Rod Smith In the Jan Bear-Tracks Bob writes "test indicates that the engine thrust line could be lowered 2" parallel to the aircraft centerline if desired". Any aerodynamic advantages to doing that? I guess it would improve 3-point visibility. It would put the prop 2" closer to the ground which I wouldn't like for bush flying. +++ #1015 Subject: Re: Thrust Line From: Float-by Shooter > In the Jan Bear-Tracks Bob writes "test indicates that the engine > thrust line could be lowered 2" parallel to the aircraft centerline if > desired". I think it might also aid in mounting certain alternative engines with lower prop flanges (relative to the top of the engine), like Budd's big radial. There is also a direct drive v-4 diesel under development (http://www.deltahawkengines.com/) which might require lowering of the thrustline, and there are probably others. +++ #1018 Subject: Thrust Line From: Russ Erb > In the Jan Bear-Tracks Bob writes "test indicates that the engine > thrust line could be lowered 2" parallel to the aircraft centerline if > desired" When I read this statement, I interpreted it to mean that if you wanted more visibility on the ground you could lower the thrust line. I sat in Proto I and thought the ground visibility was excellent. Even if Proto II (built to the plans) is slightly worse, it's still probably better than the visibility in the Cessna 180 that I fly in occasionally, which is tolerable. +++ #1023 Subject: Re: Thrust Line From: budd davisson Re: Thrust line Visibility over the nose on the Bearhawk anywhere in flight or approach/landing is more like a C-170, which is to say, the nose isn't in the way. Put a fat cushion under you and it's going to be like a 172. It doesn't need better visibility. I'm betting Bob found he's carrying a little more incidence in the stabilizer than he wants or maybe some unwanted trim and he could unload the horizontal a little by lowering the thrust line. +++ #1074 Subject: Re: Engines From: budd davisson I'm not sure which engine you're talking about, so here's the poop on all of them. I don't have the numbers on a W-670 continental, but it's about the same as a R-680 Lycoming which is 43 inches across and wieghs 540 pounds. 220 & 240 hp. An 0-540 depending on version, runs from 360-450 pounds (aproximate) w/o electric (37 pounds) and is right at 38 inches across. 235-300 hp The Vendenyev is just under 39 inches across the circle (like all Russian engines, it's quite long at 37 inches) and weighs 465 bare. FWF wieght complete is 670 pounds including prop, cowl, air systems, oil system, etc, most of which can be moved aft. 360 hp. The weight on a hard landing (especially one wheel) becomes a bigger structural factor than the horsepower. Does this answer the question? +++ #1222 Subject: IO-540 Engine for sale From: Kelvin Gurney In case anyone is interested: At http://www.flybarracuda.com/parts.html I found the following 250 HP., 6-cyl (IO-540 J4A5) Complete engine, unassembled New Chrome cyls. Garrett turbo system. Injector, exhaust assembly, all accessory parts. Email or call Bill 760.324.9455 (Days) I asked him for some more information. He is asking $5,000.00 and this is what I receiced: Kelvin: The engine has no logs. It was disassembled back in the late 70s, then inspected by an overhaul shop at Long Beach airport. This engine was to be used in completion of a Barracuda porject. The project has passed thru several hands, including mine. I cannot say that it did not have a prop strike, but the crank has been checked and found OK. The cylinders are not new, but have been chromed to tolerances. All parts are accounted for, but an overhaul is required --which means new pistons, rings, valves, main bearings, etc.. I won't guarrantee anything. If you want an inspection and will pay for it, I will arrange to have thiis done for you. This J series is rated at 250 HP and has a turbo system. The mags will need overhauling. I've decied to pass on it because (A) I want more horsepower and (B) the price seems a little steep for a engine with no logs and needing a rebuild. I have ZERO experince buying aircraft engines and am curious what people in the group think about this deal. +++ #1243 Subject: carb &cabin heat lines From: Bob Marek What diameter lines did Bob use on the Bearhawk.for carb and cabin heat. +++ #1382 Subject: Question on Franklin engine From: Kelvin Gurney Does anyone have any specs for the Franklin 6cyl engine MDL# YO-425-B? I've searched the web and all I can find is information on the modern imports. +++ #1383 Subject: re franklin engine From: stephan pelgar i been doing some reseearch on the franklin engines.the largest of the 6 cyl franklin engines is the current 6a-350 engine which produces 220 hp.for the normal aspirated and one that was turbo charged that produced 250 hp which is no longer made.the only larger one i came across was a prototype engine for the navy i believe it was.it was like 10 or 12 cyl.there was a historic webpage on engines that showed a pic of it. you can check with one of the importers of the new pzl franklins.they have the 350 ci engines.hopes it helps +++ #1499 Subject: Other - Parts! From: Mike Meador Here is another Heads Up! M14B 9 CYL. RADIAL Rated at 300/350 HP . OFFERED FOR SALE OR TRADE!! .. "0" since overhaul .. On original shipping crate .. Still pickled .. Log books never received with engine but confirmed overhaul by A&P and YAK / M14 expert .. A&P has agreed to start new engine log book .. SELL for $6,250 or best reasonable offer OR Trade for ???? .. Lets talk .. Contact Dennis Savarese located Largo FL USA. Telephone: 727-536-0236 (W) or 727-538-0707 (H). Fax: 727-536-0724. AND For Sale: New in box Cleveland 5.00x5 wheels and brakes with upgraded stainless steel disks. These are the wheels and brakes sold in the Aircraft Spruce catalog as the homebuilders package. $500 obo- save $100 off the current catalog price. fly39-@aol.com Just in case anyone was looking! +++ #1500 Subject: Re: Other - Parts! - M14B information From: Kelvin Gurney I found some other M14B's for sale. Here is the information. The first message is from a Mr. Olchevski, who is importing the M14B's from Russia. The second is from Mr. Kimball, a man Bud recommend as an M14 expert. What I got out of it was you better know EXACTLY what you are buying and then be prepared to spend allot of time getting it to work. Look's like there is a O-540 in my future. ------------------------------ FIRST ------------------------------------- Hello Mr.Gurney. Sorry for the delay in answering your questions. I was checking back with the engine's owner. I don't know the specifics. Here are some basic technical facts about that engine. It is quite similar to the M14P 9 cylinder radial used on the YAK 50, 52, 55 and the Sukhoi aerobatic aircraft, except that the B model has a splined shaft and no inverted oil system. So, all the parts are interchangible (except the carburator and reductor) with M14P. The engine come with all these parts installed: fuel pump, air pump, carburetor, oil pump and magnetos. The exhaust is also on the engine. The engine weighs approximately 475 LBS (223.6 Kg.) without oil, but with accessories. It is approximately 620 cubic inches and rated at a CONTINUOUS horsepower of 300 and as they call it "emergency" or "take off" horsepower of 350 for a 30 minute duration. Ironically, the M14P even though it is rated at 360 HP, according to it's specs, is 360 HP ONLY for a maximum of 5 minutes. Fuel consumption: At Maximum thrust (2400 rpm) - 300 gram per HP per hour; At Nominal (2300 - 2050 rpm) - 280 gram per HP per hour; At Cruising (1860 - 1650 rpm) - 205 - 230 gram per HP per hour. My company SADCOM LLC is brokering the sales of a lot of these engines. There are 30 engines in the lot: half is brand new, half is over-hauled (1st time out of 5-6 possible over-haules). The engines are in storage conditions, boxed. The location is St.Petersburg, Russia. The engines can be sold in different quantities, including one at a time. Price depends from the amount and (new/overhauled) conditions. Price is quoted on a base FOB port Baltimore (delivery in the US and import duties if any are extra). I understand that you need only one engine. The new M14B costs $4.500, overhauled $3.900 I have just started advertising these engines and havn't sold any yet. I also don't have any experience in this kind of business. My past experiences are: aviation engineers in Russia (1987-1990), run import/export company bringing Russian arts and crafts to US and computer parts to Russia (1991-95) I still sell the remaining items on my web site www.sadcom.com and eBay (as sadco-@pressroom.com) ; since 1996 work as a network engineer in the US. My partner in St.Petersburg owns the engines and he will be shipping them to US at my request. We could use an escrow company to handle the payment transfer if you decide to buy one. Sincerely, Slava Olchevski -------------------------------- SECOND -------------------------------- The M14B is of the family of the but as I understand it, it uses a different gear box ratio with a HUGE metal 3 blade prop that nobody has cut down an flown yet. Like many other things, if they were as suited for your and our uses, they'd cost the same as an M14P. Some M14B eingines have a right angle drive nose case for a helicopter making them harder to use. Sincerely, Kevin Kimball, VP Engineering Jim Kimball Enterprises, Inc. PO Box 849, 5354 Cemetery Rd. Zellwood, FL 32798 407-889-3451 ph, 407-889-7168 fax www.jimkimballenterprises.com +++ #1588 Subject: OTHER - Engines From: Mike Meador I found this on RAH - I am not sure if he is selling them at each pricing or 14 grand for all three. Later - Mike Subject: 3 M-14 9 cylinder aircraft Engines & 2 props...FOR SALE Date: 15 Feb 2000 22:07:13 GMT From: brokenspar@aol.comstopspam (BrokenSpar) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt 3 M14 360hp engines for sale....all are overhauled, pickled and in their crates, 2 have the logbooks....with 2 brand new props for same engines...$14000...will not separate...in Portland, Oregon area.. email if interested remove "stopspam" to email me +++ #1847 From: Alan Nauman Subject: [Bearhawk] Engines I just thought I would toss this out to see what you guys think. I found the engine that would make ME happy but I have concerns that the power output/weight may be a little high. It has come to my attention that Chevy is putting all aluminum 350s in the late model Corvettes. While expensive, that means that the engines are available. Northwest aero sells one that weighs in at 490lbs and puts out 300hp continuous. Their Chevy V-6 is a little under powered and still weighs in at 425lbs (iron block). Please don't hammer me for wanting to use a converted auto engine but I would like some suggestions or pointers from those who have looked at the auto option. I want to get as close to the max power as possible but I have concerns with a lower weight V-6 putting out over 200hp for long periods of time. +++ #1861 From: Bruce A. Frank Subject: [Bearhawk] Re: Engines Well, from my point of view either would make an excellent choice for the Bearhawk, but then maybe I'm a little prejudice. . At about $13,000 for a new engine the LT-1 (I think that's its designation) is the least expensive 300hp you're going to find. That weight includes the PSRU. An 0-470 is only a few pounds less and it doesn't put out that hp. BTW there is little chance of pulling that 300 hp except with a CSP or a CAP in a Bearhawk (well, maybe on floats with a flat prop, but the cruise will be down around 100 kts. Again the need for a constant speed prop). As for the 4.3L Chevy V-6 at cruise rpm, about 3800 to 4200 rpm, you're only using about 140 to 180 hp. That 200 hp rating is at 4800 rpm and unless you're running a really flat pitch prop you'll not see that hp. It does mean that the engine has enough depth to not be running on the ragged edge of distruction all the time. +++ #1893 From: William & Delinda Johnson Subject: [Bearhawk] Lord Mounts & O540 Engines Help! I am making the metal spacer to replace the lord mount during construction of the engine mount. Seems that the mounts which came with the engine (0540) have a part number J-3049-35 with a compressed thickness of approximately .75". The number for a 250 Comanche (they use an O540 engine) is J-3804-20. Since that mount is more common I would like to change; however, I do not know if the compressed thickness is the same. Also, what size bolt does the J-3804-20 use? The lordmounts.com web site was no help. Any lord mount experts out there? +++ #1906 William & Delinda Johnson Subject: [Bearhawk] FW: Lord Mounts & O540 Engines I talked to the Lord Mount tech support line. Since these mounts are expensive, anyone putting an O540 engine on their bearhawk should keep this in mind. The J-3804-20 is a kit which contains 2 of the J-3049-35 rubber shock mounts and 4 metal spacers which slide over the bolt (between the rubber shocks). Spruce sell the individual shocks (J-3049-35) for $33 and the entire kit for $81. The spacers are easy to make from some 4130 tubing so look at Sun and Fun for the J-3049-35 mounts. If you find some cheap get 8 for your engine. If you find the kit (J-3804-20) cheap, you only need one. Another mystery solved. I spent the day on the lathe and mill making metal spacers to replace the rubber shock mounts while building the engine mount. Also made a bending block for forming the forward wing attach fitting on the fuselage by using the press. It works great. Pictures to be posted next week. +++ #1929 From: Donald Schindler Subject: [Bearhawk] Re: Lord Mounts & O540 Engines Bill, I am no Lord expert but I sometimes have to help replace them since I do Dynamic balancing. What I sometimes do is call Lord during business hours and they have helped me a good bit, also try Barry mounts as they usually have a direct replacement for all of Lords mounts(usually at a better price). Either should be able to give you the particulars. Don 068 +++ #1930 From: Budd Davisson Subject: [Bearhawk] Re: Lord Mounts & O540 Engines FYI: mounts are a major and continuing item in my Pitts maintenance and the Barry Mounts last a solid 450-500 hours but I never get more than 300 out of Lords. With Lords I'd have the engine out of the airplane at least once a year. budd +++ #1938 From: Donald Schindler Subject: [Bearhawk] Re: Lord Mounts & O540 Engines Budd, Do you find that the jell donut inside the mount ruptures? I have had this happen to me twice with the Lords, usually the upper right which takes most of the P-Load. I sometimes find that pilots have purchased "new" Lords that have been sitting on the shelf more than 5 years. Lord doesnt advise that they even be sold after 5 years on the shelf. There is a date code stamped on the rubber donut. When I balance engines I often find rock hard donuts that are giving the owners so much grief with avionics and exhaust etc and getting them to change them is like advising a root canal. Take care Don 068 +++ #1941 From: budd davisson Subject: [Bearhawk] Re: Lord Mounts & O540 Engines I started using Barrys about two years ago. The Lords would simply begin to sag until on harder than normal landings the edge of the spinner would nick the nosebowl.I could rotate them a 180 degrees and get another 50 hours out of them, but it usually wasn't worth the effort. Remember, however, my hangar temperature sometimes hits 130 degrees, so everything, including the concrete will sag. The older 4" Maule tailwheels would flat spot from the heat, and I had to make a thing that kept it off the ground, if I wasn't going to fly for a week (which is very, very seldom). Paradise does have its drawbacks. +++ #1994 From: William & Delinda Johnson Subject: [Bearhawk] Posters & Engine mounts > How many out there would go for a poster-could this be another > assignment for Bill Johnson? Wow, I better get the brace wire order done first! However, posters would not be hard. Lets see what digital pictures I get while at sun & fun. I can post to the web site and we can decide which to make into posters. In about 6 months I will gladly make posters of N720SF (Bearhawk 023). Yes, I got my N number! Of course that assumes I can delay starting my next job to continue the full time work on my project. Stay tuned for how I made my Lycoming O540 engine mount. It is not for the faint of heart. I am 80% done. Used Bob's design with some minor changes to suit my taste for mounts. Also, I discussed with Bob moving the engine closer to the firewall than the October 1999 newsletter recommended. I used a distance from the front spar centerline to the front of the crankshaft flange of 69" in my bearhawk. It is approximately the same on Bob's proto II - maybe slightly closer. Bob put his engine as close to the firewall as possible while leaving clearance for the magneto wires to clear the firewall. You will need a large welding tip and good 3/8 as well 7/16 reamers . . . +++ #2000 From: William & Delinda Johnson Subject: [Bearhawk] Sun & Fun Hat or Buttons Russ, I am feeling the same way on the engine mount. Tubes move all over, permanently shrink, bend, warp, etc. I have spent over 40 hours just on this darn mount! It is really kicking my bottom. I think I finally have it nailed. +++ #2199 John Morrison Subject: Baby Beaver BearHawk...Baby Beaver BearHawk...(say it 3 times fast) In my continuing effort to build the ultimate water-borne bush plane, I stumbled across a design from the hanger of Steve Culp (Culp's Special) called the Monoculp. It's a high -wing monoplane with a 2900 gross, 32' span and 24'6" length. It's powered by a 360hp M14 radial. I printed the drawing of it and scaled it up to my drawing (thanks to Russ's cargo door drawing) of the BearHawk. Using the thrustline and leading edge of the wing as reference, I transposed the radial and cowling onto the BearHawk....and by golly it looks pretty damn good (somewhere between a small de Hav. Beaver and the old Norseman). I had to lengthen the gear by about 10 inches (scale) but the fuselage, tail, cabin all lined up as though the two aircraft were designed by the same person. I will scan the drawing and e-mail it to whomever cares. Now I know the M14p issue has raged in thes forum in the past, but I think major ground is being covered by some pretty serious designers, and I suspect the amount of tinkering needed to make the radial fit the BearHawk is growing less and less. I think it may be prudent to look at the de-tuned version of the M14, which puts out 240hp, as Steve Culp informed me that the M14p in fighting trim pumps out over 1300lbs of thrust. A major benefit of the Russian radials is there ability to sustain abuse and adverse conditions. Overheating, overevving etc have all failed to take out the M14. Steve relays a story about his wife (ya sure Steve) leaving the cooling cowls closed in cruise (say that 3 three times fast). The first sign of the problem was the smell of burning oil. The temp guage was pegged...400hr later, no repairs, no trouble. Steve says the air start on the M14 is very reliable, though you have to remember to pull the engine through. Also, if the first blast of compressed air doesn't start the engine, you know something is wrong...almost a fail safe system. Now, being Canadian, and therefore half commie according to Senator Helms, I have no problem with supporting the Russians...what say all those interested in painting the BearHawk "Moscow Red" team up and start crunching numbers and developing this viable engine option? +++ #2204 budd davisson Subject: Re: Lycoming versus round motor > the BearHawk is growing less and less. I think it may be prudent to > look at the de-tuned version of the M14, which puts out 240hp, as > Steve Culp informed me that the M14p in fighting trim pumps out over > 1300lbs of thrust. The "detuned" M-14 Steve is using is actually an M-14 Helicopter engine that normally does 360 hp, but it has a 90 degree angle drive gear case. He takes the gear case off completely and replaces it with the straight drive nose case off the three cylinder APU engine which is nothing more than an M-14P with only three jugs and the other holes blocked off. He ends up with a direct drive engine that is lighter (I'd guess at least 50 pounds or about 400-425 pounds max) with 620 cubes that'll swing a big prop and fairly low rpms. Without the gearing I don't know what it'll put out in thrust, but it would be a bunch, but not nearly what the normally geared M-14P does. All of the engines are used, but "overhauled" Vendenyev engines are great values and not to be feared as long as the logs are with them. > Why would you want to add that much weight by putting in a 240Hp > version of the M14P. Budd has already stated that the Bearhawk > airframe is good for 360HP with very minor modifications. I believe > the biggest problem he is having is acommodating the much longer > landing gear. If he gets that solved I'll still consider the M14P but > it sure will be the 360HP version. Before I do the Desert Hawk I'm going to have my people run a finite element analysis of the entire airplane to increase the gross and Vne so all I'll have to worry about is a flutter test program between Bob's Vne of 170 mph and what ever this airplane will do in top speed plus about 20 knots. Now that I've flown the 260 Hawk, however, I'll have to admit that the only reason I'd do the round motored version is because it's such a boss looking machine. The 260 is more airplane than just about anyone really needs and a lot less aggravation. +++ #2207 From: Rod Smith Subject: Re: RE: [Bearhawk] SnF/P-II comments > Thanks for the lesson. Well explained. Does this mean that > realistically the top end loaded or not is going to be around 135? My > guess is yes, unless your pouring your wallet on the ground with full > power.... Budd reported a 150mph cruise at 23square with Proto 2. From my O-540 operators manual that equates to 170HP or 65%power. From my experience with that engine, leaned out at altitude you will be getting 13gph fuel consumption with a carburator or 12gph if fuel injected. I believe that Russ was saying that above 135mph the airfoil starts losing efficiency because it is flying slightly nose down. This is of course dependant on weight and density altitude. Budd reported that Bob is considering a lower camber airfoil. Here is my opinion on that. If you have started on your wing, dont worry about it. You will be able to regain some of the lost cruise speed by setting the wing incidence at a lower angle. If you haven't started on your wing decide what type of flying you will be doing. If your Bearhawk will be strictly an airport to airport plane go with the lower camber airfoil if that is what Bob decides to do. If you contemplate some bush flying or will have your plane on floats, stick with the original airfoil. A two (I calculated 2 1/2)mph lower stall speed with the original airfoil doesn't sound like much, but it can make a big difference when trying to get into a tight strip or when splashing down on choppy water. Any airfoil selected is going to be a comprimise. Pick what is going to suit your flying best. +++ #2238 From: budd davisson Date: Sat Apr 22, 2000 1:40pm Subject: Re:D-Hawk > Well, the risk I run posting before reading all the old postings, is > that I spend a week developing a radial engined BearHawk drawing (for > maximum short field hauling capability incidentally), only to find it > has already been perfected...the beautiful Desert Hawk. Budd, I will > buy any plans for this mod. the instant they are ready. The Desert Hawk is not with out its short comings, the primaryone being prop clearance. It swings a 96" prop ( at the shortest) and even with 31" tires has less prop clearance then it should for serious bush work. I don't want to make the gear much longer because of structural concerns in the gear legs and carry-through (which I've already beefed up), although I could just keep upping the tubing size, which gets heavy although this airplane isnt' likely to care. With that prop and thrust available takeoff will be startling because the prop will be "blowing" so much of the wing. > I had heard the term Desert Hawk used several times, but just found > the drawing tonight. The cowling seems very slim, mine had a much more > "pug" nosed look, a la Beaver. Where is the c of g on your drawing? The Cg on the drawing is exactly where itis in the normal "Hawk, as is the prop disk but I've moved the tail back ten inches. The direct drive M-14 conversion we were talking about moves the prop a solid six inches closer to the cylinders so the cowling, of necessity, has to be shorter and more pug nosed. Mine still has the 360 hp gear case and uses the front of a stock Yak 52 cowling with a new skirt added that tapers to the rear. I'm buried in so much stuff right now it's going to be some time before the Desert Hawk gets any attention. The Bearhawk comes first. > Is that the "Jack in the Box" guy at the controls? Yes, that is Jack. It's a little known fact that he is a serious Dirt Monkey (Arizona bush pilot). He and I got together to build something that he could land in a Jack in the Box parking lot to buy fries while on the road. Incidentally, he also said he's tired of people putting car antennae up his butt. +++ #2317 budd davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Other-Desert Hawk stuff > Budd, forgive me if this posting got through previously (I think I am > also experiencing compucrappis severis), but I wanted to know what > obstacles/challenges are still in front of you in the design of the > Desert Hawk. I realize this is perhaps a premature pursuit for you at > this time, but the success of the conversion to radial power may factor > into my plans very early as I am building the fuselage first. Given the > known problem of prop clearance, would a three blade prop be a solution > (albeit an expensive one)? Also, what about moving the thrust line up? > I realize this will kill forward visibility but the flat profile of the > M14P should allow for mounting closer to the firewall and higher > overall. The airframe would then have a countoured "belly" leading down > from the cowling between the gear. Having now flown the 260 BH (See Airbum), I'd have to say that unless you're into pioneering or need a really grotesque amount of performance, that I'd advise against the M-14 until we've built at least one airplane and debugged the whole thing. The 260 Hawk was absolutely mind-boggling in its performance and handling. Also, the M-14P engine is actually quite long for a radial, as long as the Lycoming. Moving the thrust line up would be one solution to the prop clearance (and the three-blade prop is still 95" and $12,000!) but not necessarily a good one. I'd hate to give up any more visibility than bsolutely necessary. As it is positioned now, you have excellent straight ahead vis and adequate three point. Bring the engine up and that'll be compromised. As it is set up now, W/31" tires the clearance in a level attitude is 13" and 27" in three point.W/8.50 x 6 that drops to 6" level and 20" in three point. If you want, give me your e-mail address and I'll send you a jpeg that illustrates all of this. No need to trash up the e-group. What are we looking at in increased drag with flap reflexing? Drag will go down because the Cl of the wing will go down. Less lift, less induced drag. +++ #2338 William & Delinda Johnson Subject: Updated Pictures With Sun & Fun and other distractions, I have made little progress in the last couple weeks. However, I have updated the Pictures of my engine mount building. Press your browser refresh button to ensure you get the latest. http://home.fuse.net/wjohnson/firewallforward.html +++ #2368 William Johnson Subject: Donut Size > The spacers used as a subsitute for the donuts, what are their > dimensions and how did you arrive at that those figures Don, the critical dimension is the thickness. I used 3/4" which is the compressed thickness of the lord mount. See picture. http://home.fuse.net/wjohnson/Mvc-065f.jpg Also, the diameter is 2.75". There is a 1/8" raised area in the middle to center the metal washer on the flange. +++ #2369 From: William Johnson Subject: Re: Donut Size Opps, yes those are my fingers in the 'donut size' picture. Also, the engine is bolted to N720SF for the first time! Here is a picture of my 'hanger flying' and another in the 'on the gear' series. http://home.fuse.net/wjohnson/Mvc-070.jpg http://home.fuse.net/wjohnson/Mvc-071.jpg I know we just had a big discussion about pictures, etc. However, I would really enjoy seeing some pictures of different projects even if just a rib. As a public service, if you send one picture of your project I will create a section on my web page to post your 'on the gear' type picture. We can update as necessary so everyone can see your progress. Send to my personal e-mail address and include your serial number. One picture only please and keep the file size 100k or less (jpeg format). My site is already over the free amount of my ISP! If you don't have a digital camera, find someone with a scanner to create the jpeg image. +++ #2399 From: Tom & Michelle Brant Subject: Belted Air Power 4.3 V6 for Bearhawk I have recently been contacted by one of the owners of Belted Air Power who asked me several questions about the Bearhawk. First of which was asking if a Pacer fuselage could be converted... Then, whether the Pacer wing could be converted. I don't know the structure of the Pacer but I suppose with a lot of work it could be done... I mentioned he may as well start from scratch. What their looking into is setting up a 4.3 V6 and / or a 350 for the Bearhawk airframe. I let him know that there would probably be some interest from builders and if they decided it's something they would like to do, to let us know... I would like to hear any opinions of the group on Belted Air Power conversions and if there's an interest. I personally have read the RV-6 articles about their 4.3 conversion and it sounded pretty impressive. I think it's definately something that could work. +++ #2400 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Belted Air Power 4.3 V6 for Bearhawk Have the belted airpower guys give me a shout. If this kit thing works out, we maybe able to work a deal with them and give them a jump start. I'd love to see someone prove an automotive engine and the Bearhawk is the perfect research vehicle. Automotive conversions are the only way to go, if we expect to keep airplanes within reach cost wise. Which V-6 are they using? +++ #2407 From: Kelvin Gurney Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Belted Air Power 4.3 V6 for Bearhawk Great news! I've heard good things about Belted Air Power and would look favorably on their offering. I have been trying to stay informed of my power plant options. In looking around for 300 horsepower engines close to the 400 pound mark I came up with few options. IO-540's, GO-480, and several auto conversions that are "in development". For me the words "in development" combined with an auto conversions raise a very BIG red flag. I only know of one web site that claims to have a developed engine, Crossflow Aero Corporation. Their specification sheet is impressive, (which raises another red flag for me) 300 HP at 440 pounds wet. I have not researched Crossflow Aero Corporation so I am only repeating what I have read at the web site. Before any outfit got my money I would need two things. 1st - An engine, the same configuration as they were trying to sale me with a fair amount of uneventful air time on it. 2nd - Independent conformation of air time, horsepower, and weight claims. Given those conditions, I would choose a auto conversion over a low time aircraft engine of equal value. +++ #2411 mailstuff Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Belted Air Power 4.3 V6 for Bearhawk Roger Mellema (sp.) has been running a Ford V-6 through a reduction on the front of his BD-4 for years. I talked to him a couple of years ago at Oshkosh and he was really happy with his. He did it himself, but didn't tweak the engine for a lot of horsepower. It seems all of the firewall forward auto engines are a fortune. I say build it for strength and reliability and put the right cam in it. Take it out and fly it and find what needs fixing. Most of the auto conversions do not have enough time on enough engines to substantiate their claims. That's why we call the planes we fly experimental. +++ #2415 From: Tom & Michelle Brant Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Belted Air Power 4.3 V6 for Bearhawk I believe they are thinking of the Chev 4.3 liter that they've used in so many car and trucks fro the last 10 years or more. I can't remember the date, but Sport Aviation did a write up on the RV-6A that they installed that combo in and it sounded pretty impressive. I forwarded your email to them so hopefully they'll get a hold of you. It sounds like they would support the development although I'm not sure to what extent. Keep us informed if you find out anything. Any news on the kits yet. Don't mean to pester.... +++ #2416 From: kirk and kim urbanczyk Subject: 4.3 Chevy If you check out the Starduster newsletter ,I dont know which month,but I think it was about a year ago(they come out 4 times a year),there is an exellent article on a 4.3 auto conversion that the new owner of the company has completed and installed on a SA300. +++ #2422 From: Russ Erb Subject: [Bearhawk] Visit > I was in Virginia last week on business so I had to stop by > Barrows Field. Got to meet both Bob and Mike. To much info to to > relay here. Mike told me about the prop on Proto II. Bob has a > whopping 1100 dollars wrapped up in it. Bob also said the kit is > still not anywhere near a done deal, so keep banging out those > ribs. Guess that's what I'll do. Going shopping for aluminum this > week. $1100? From what I hear that's dirt cheap for a constant speed prop, especially one for 260 HP. Then again, I don't know if I'm daring enough to fabricate my own prop blades. Something about highly stressed parts. +++ #2427 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Props You wanted thoughts on props: Here are my clean ones, for what ever they're worth. 1. Composite vs. metal The only measurable difference is in weight because, all things being equal, the material doesn't effect performance. However, a few of the composite props have been optimized and offer a small perf edge over metal 2. Two vs. Three Blades I've tested a number of airframes with two and three blade props and there is a marginal difference in climb, sometimes a lost in cruise, but a noticeable improvement in smoothness. Bob's 260 prototype feels like it has an electric motor in it. 3-blade Pitts are the same way. 3. On Composite, vendor of choice Go with Hoffman (Steen Aerolab). Price is a little better and they've NEVER had an AD. MT keeps breaking lag bolts. I don't think the composite props are worth the extra bucks ($12,000). I'd shop around for the biggest blade Hartzell/MacCaully matched to an 0-540 with the smallest number of AD's and use that. And I'd go rebuilt, not new. +++ #2449 From: William & Delinda Johnson Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Props Thanks Budd for the information. I have a fixed pitch 90" prop that came with the O540 (off a crop duster). Certainly a power prop and I bet it would make the bearhawk climb for the sky really nice. I discussed with Bob and he thinks if the pitch is around 55 it may give reasonable cruise performance. If it will work, I will save my $$ for the engine overhaul and radios. My wish is for a Hoffman 3 blade prop but budget is not going to allow that right now. Seems kind of quite on the bearhawk group. I have been busy building the wing components and will probably work on the boot & engine cowling next week in Elkton. The wing support frames will be done tomorrow so the spars will get bolted together next week as well. +++ #2450 budd davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Props Your comment about using a fixed pitch prop got me thinking, and I apologize, if I run on too long. Anyone who isn't in the mood to hear a bunch of personal opinions should hit the "delete" button now. Bye! About props: I get a sense that there are many in the Bearhawk group that are looking for an economical way to get into the air and still have a good performing airplane. Since I've flown the airplane with both engines I've come to the conclusion that the engine and prop combination would be an obvious place to cut some costs. With either a 360 or a 540, a fixed pitch prop makes perfect sense, cuts a lot of bucks and just as much weight. The bigger engine has enough torque to turn a steep prop fast enough for good takeoff and still have decent cruise. Also, for anyone listening: you don't need a newly overhauled engine or, if you do overhaul, you don't have to go to new limits. A "service limits" overhaul, in which every part in the engine meets service limits will probably run at least 1,000 hours but cost less than half as much to OH. Better yet, you can buy an engine with a quality OH on it that has 800-1000 hrs and get by for around $8000. Maybe less. You probably won't live long enough to used up what's left on the engine. Further, the airplane will probably fly great with nothing but a little 160 hp 0-320 in it. don't forget, a C-172 grosses the same as a Bearhawk with the 160 and originally with the 145 hp continental. Of course, the 4-cylinder Lycomings have all gotten expensive because of the popularity of RV's. There are a lot of engines out there that aren't very popular that would work well and would be much cheaper. 0-470 Continentals (230 hp) for one, although you'd have to engineer a bed mount for it. The airplane screams for a 220 Franklin, which is one of the guttiest engines ever built. 0-435, 190 hp Lycomings are heavy for the horsepower, but they are also used on so few airplanes they don't have much of a market and parts are cheap. Don't go for any of the geared engines (GO-435/480), which are practically free. They are low pric3ed for a reason: short life and expensive overhaul. And they are heavy. The low-end 0-540's (235 hp) are also fairly inexpensive. We don't all need 260 hp. We WANT 260 hp. I have no idea why I ran on like this. Someone stop me! +++ #2458 From: Rod Smith Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Props > Does anyone have experience or information about IVO props? IVO props seem to work okay on two-strokes, but have a history of shedding blades when used on Lycomings. +++ #2475 From: Pierce Terry Civ 412 TW/TSI Subject: FW: FW: [Bearhawk] Props > Does anyone have experience or information about IVO props? I have included some comments from a neighbor at the airpark where I live. He is not a member of the list, but you can contact him directly for further discussion. -----Original Message----- From: Vincent Osburn [mailto:flyby41@e...] > Is your adjustable prop on the KF an IVO? > If so, should I pass on your milder comments? ;-) Sure, I talked to "Mr. Ivo" today (sounded like a nice guy).Don't know what he is willing to do, but sounds like there may be a very, very small chance he will help me out in some way (or at least use whatever I say against me [joke]). Doesn't matter much though ,even if he gave me a completely new one, which he won't, I still would not consider using this prop or similar one at this stage unless he can prove gross negligence on my part. Simple and ingenious design though it is, I would tell anybody, it needs refinement. The larger version, like would be used on Bearhawk, is very much the same. My prop worked very well but only for 2 or 3 hours total. I really don't want to be anyones R&D department at my own expense or possibly that of my airplane and even my life. Would be glad to discuss details of how and why the thing will not hold up. Would be even happier to hear from anyone who has had success with similar airplane engine combo, that is, Kitfox with 582, 3 to 1 reduction and inflight adjustable Ivoprop. Will let you know what happens but I think this situation will ground me for a couple months. +++ #2476 From: Tim Anderson Subject: Re: FW: FW: [Bearhawk] Props I have a ground adjustable IVO prop on my rotax 912 (80 hp). Have about 120 hours on it. Works fine. Have heard mixed reviews on the in-flight adjustables, seems to be more trouble than they are worth. Not sure how they would work on an engine 3 times as big. +++ #2484 Kelvin Gurney Subject: Re: Props Thanks for the information. After Rod had told me IVO had a history of shedding blades on Lycoming's I wrote IVO and asked them about it. Here is what they had to say. On the plus side they seem pretty up front about the problem, (for a company with a major problem). On the negative side it doesn't sound like they have a fix for it. They seem to be saying a 4-cylinder power pulse's causes problems while a 6-cylinder power pulse's won't. Maybe some of the engineers in the group can comment, but 4 to 6 cylinder seems like a pretty fine line to me. -------------------IVO's response--------------------------- We had some blades moving in the hub on the O360 series 4 cylinder so we have a hold on props for Lycoming O360 series until Ivo can come up with a torsional dampener that will go between the prop and the flange to absorb the pulses going into the prop. If you have a tractor mount we can use our Magnum propeller on th eIO540 6 cylinder. *The Ivoprop has precautions and a service bulletin to prevent and detect blade movement in the hub. We are putting a "knurl surface" on the aluminum plates for better gripping of the composite blades. A re-torque procedure needs to be followed to get the knurl surface to imprint onto the blades. Once imprinted the torque needs to be checked each 10 hours. The service bulletin comes with some stainless tape (same as our leading edge tape) that is to be cut into strips and placed over the gaps where the blades come together at the hub. The tapes are to be looked at during each pre-flight and if the tape is broken that is an early indication that the blades are moving in the hub. Regars, Ron/ ivoprop.com 800 367 7767 California ---------------------------------------------------------------- +++ #2492 From: Pierce Terry Civ 412 TW/TSI Subject: FW: FW: [Bearhawk] Re: Props (Ivoprop) And anybody following this thread, additional information from Vince regarding the props. -----Original Message----- From: Vincent Osburn [mailto:flyby41@e...] Update on my Ivoprop. I Went to the factory today. Owner seems like a nice and very knowledgeable fellow. He convinced me to try prop again and that there was no serious damage yet. He also said that if I still have problems he will "swap" me a larger much more substantial upgraded version (no comparison really). Also he gave me new prop bolts and is repairing my blades at no charge. Pretty good considering I'm not the original purchaser. Sounds like Ivoprop even though they have problems with some prop, engine, gearbox, combo's will stand behind they're product and make things right. Surprised the heck out of me in this day and age. Might be back in the air this weekend. Noticed while I was at the factory the large percentage of Airboat propeller business he does with fine success. There is no more severe service you can give a prop than on an airboat ,acrobatics or crop dusting included. These are the same hubs and blades as would be used on high horsepower aircraft (ie bearhawk) with no problems .Will let you know what happens. +++ #2495 From: Donald Schindler Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: Props Kelvin, I am not an engineer, but I do Dynamic balancing balancing on several thousand aircraft so I speak from practical experience. Unless the Prop has been tested and certificated to work with a particular engine, there is no assurance that it will not self destruct in flight. The safest thing that I think any pilot can do before he hangs a prop a a plane is to call the manufacturer and ask if the prop is certified with that engine. A good rule of thumb is that if a particular prop-engine combination is approved for a certificated aircraft, then it will very likely it will work fine in your homebuilt. Any I.A. can look up these approved combinations in his I.A. software(IA Approach or T Data)for you. When an incompatible engine-prop are combined, the harmonic forces are so great that the prop eventually sheds a blade, sometimes in only a few hours. It is also a good idea to respect any RPM limitations that any engine-prop combo have. For instance, In my Thorp I have an 0-360 A2D with a compact Hartzell, I called Hartzell and asked what certificated aircraft use this combination and are there any limitations. They said yes, in Mooney's they are red-lined from 1950 to 2100 RPM so I adhere to that in my Thorp. Good luck, Don I.A. 068 +++ #2502 From: budd davisson Subject: Prop comments Yet another opinion on props: Seems like a really lousy place to experiment. +++ #2587 William & Delinda Johnson Subject: 023 Update 3. N720SF has a firewall which is LARGER than Bob's. I need room for a muffler and also have a larger instrument panel. I used the original plan dimension of 7.5" above the engine mount bolts and added some to the sides and bottom. See this picture for comparison of the plans size with 023. (the overlay is the 7.5" plan number not the 6.5"). http://home.fuse.net/wjohnson/fflayout7.jpg +++ #2592 From: Morrison, John Subject: ACCOUNTANT ON RAMPAGE!!!!! **Crisis!** The accounting firm that is overseeing my building project (My Wife & Co.), made a comment at dinner last night that has caused a crisis situation....."...so the BearHawk itself should cost about $5000-$6000 right?...." she asked, "that's right!" I replied, bouyed by her new interest in the project. "...and the engine, about $2000 or $3000?...." Good God....what am I going to do? I'm sure I was in full disclosure! Oh man!! Help with engine prices please? What do various cores cost? (panic-stricken)....I even said "honey, the non-geared version of the Vendenyev radial is $6800 new!" ..."isn't that great?"....apparantly $6800 should buy a completed aircraft with moving map GPS in her world.....I just finished building a 300hp V8 from scratch for my hot rod, is anyone thinking of an auto conversion? or can a Lycoming be reliably rebuilt at home?.....arghhh! +++ #2594 From: Bob Romanko Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] ACCOUNTANT ON RAMPAGE!!!!! Not to worry... Tell her you're putting in a Ford V6 ala Blandon. You're SO far off from the engine going in, it's not even funny. It's going to take you about five years to get your Bearhawk to the point where you're ready to think about buying a powerplant. A lot can happen in five years. About two years into the project (once you've poured your life into your wings), I'd start dropping subtle hints about the "evils" of auto conversions. Tell her a horror story about auto conversions. Do this over time. If you tell her everything all at once she'll catch on to you quicker than you can say "Not with OUR money you don't". I'd say you need to space the stories about every 90 days. The key here is to LAYER the information, and make it look like it's HER decision to look at alternatives. After all, she's going up with you, right? Believe me, she'll break. (...here I need to let you folks know that this is a ruse of course. Most of us agree that there are some great auto conversions out there flying. My point here is to answer John's question...) If all goes well your wife will actually say at some point, "Well honey, what other choices do you have?" Should this happen you need to avoid the strong urge to do backflips and start giving yourself high-fives. Instead, rub your chin thoughtfully and mention Bob Barrows. Tell her what a great designer he is, how he's helped you with the project, and what an expert he is at installing engines. Say to your wife that you'll give Bob a call and discuss options with him. Women eat this stuff up. This is like stopping and asking for the directions when you're lost. She will be all over this suggestion like slop on pig. You will be her hero. Now, EVERYONE on this group already knows that Bob is a certified engine (Lycoming, Continental) guy through and through. He sells a BEAUTIFUL Lycoming "all up" for around $12,000. Not bad at all. You really don't even need to make the call, but do it anyhow, hopefully with her standing there. When you get off the phone, look at her thoughtfully, and lay on the following. This is your moment of truth. The moment you've waited three years for. It is at this point you need to go into major justification mode. Here are a few suggestions: 1. Honey, I learned a lot about aviation since I started the project. I know this is more money than we thought, but can we really put a price on our safety? (This should be the only one you'll need. This almost makes sense, even to a guy) 2. Honey, I think we should just ignore Bob, and stick with the Ford. We'll be fine up there. (Fear, uncertainty, and doubt work every time with a woman. Men welcome these emotions and as a result kill ourselves more often.) 3. Honey, I'll just put in the Ford and I'll rent a plane when we fly together. (unless your insurance is HUGH, she won't like this one, especially if you're the major breadwinner in the family.) 4. Maybe I could build my own aircraft engine from an old core? (You vs. Bob Barrows? I don't think so, and neither will she! This is back to the 'ol asking for directions trick.) John, this should get you started. You've dug a bit of a hole for yourself, but with the right information and timing I see no reason you shouldn't be able to come out of this with only minor injury. +++ #2714 From: Mike Meador Subject: A Poor Link Here is something that I came across a little while ago that I thought you all might like. http://mtnia.com/cdgarden/englink.htm +++ #2817 From: Jim Shaw Subject: Propeller for sale If any of you bearhawk builders are looking for a fixed pitch propeller, I have an overhauled(still in the shipping box) McCauley "KLIPTIP" MET-L-PROP FA8452. This is the standard propeller for a PA-25 235 or 260 Lycoming powered Pawnee. If anyone is interested in this prop, please E-Mail or call me. It won't be around for long. Jim Shaw (504) 542-6361 evenings. +++ #2818 From: Mike Meador Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Propeller for sale If you don't sell it by next Friday - I'll put it in the newsletter if you want. +++ #2819 From: Jim Shaw Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Propeller for sale Mike, That would be great if you would put the propeller in the newsletter. That prop goes for about $3200.00 new, so list it for $2500.00. Thanks, +++ #2977 From: Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Welding Stress Relief by Vibration Funny you should bring this up, my neighbor just had a motor mount break on his Whitman-10 I t broke about 1/2 inch from the cluster at the longeron end. The guy knows about gas welding and releiving and was very suprised. +++ #3075 Subject: alternate engines From: mailstuff Has anybody done any serious investigating of the LOM 6 cylinder inline 235hp engine or the Franklin flat 6 cylinder 220 hp engine? I flew behind a Franklin in my Stinson 108-3 and it was smooth, but it took my A&P license to keep it in the air. These are cheaper than LYC & CON, but I haven't heard of any of them with serious hours on them. I know Van's was doing a 220 Frank conversion for the RV-8, but I haven't seen it materialize yet. The LOM is built like a Chekoslovakian outhouse and is streamlined, but is an eastern bloc boat anchor? I am hoping Budd or someone will have a little insight. +++ 3077 Subject: Re: Frankling/LOM engines From: budd davisson You want an opinion, here's one, and it's free. The LOM engines are super engines with the only drawbacks being maybe a CG consideration and cowling. It would look like a Fairchild 24R with that engine. Not all bad. And they are relatively inexpensive, allthings considered. The 220 Frankling engine, is to my mind, one of the best engines ever made. It's a smooth, torquey little toad, runs like crazy and is reasonably light. The big question is the support from PZL: it has been a little spotty. That must be getting better or Van wouldn't be considering it. Some time ago I heard Maule was thinking about using the engine again and would become the importer, if they did. If that were to happen, the Franklin would be my Bearhawk engine of choice right behind, or maybe next to, an 0-540. +++ #3504 Subject: Nose bowl From: Can anyone comment on the best nose bowl to use on the Bearhawk and where to get it? +++ #3507 Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Nose bowl From: lbhensley Has anyone seen the nosebowl used on the Firebolt? This is the one that I'm using. I already have the bowl in hand and it is both nice looking as well as well made. +++ #3510 Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Nose bowl From: lbhensley Here is the e-mail address for the builder/owner. I chose this bowl for another project but after seeing the BH260 at sun 'n fun this year, I decided that this was the correct bowl. My partner,vberthals is also going to use the same bowl. An advantage of this bowl is how it is aligned to the engine. The builder has already drilled the holes for the Lycoming flange into a removable portion of the bowl. This will save a lot of time during the cowl building. I've experienced this before and this bowl will save time. Just give Mac a call or e-mail at the address below. If you need any more information, just write. Good luck. +++ #3511 Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Nose bowl From: Russ Erb As far as I know, you can't get humor like that on the RV list (but you could get flamed!). Aren't you glad you're here? I would say that this shows what highly intelligent people Bearhawk builders are, but isn't true by definition? As for the real question, all I know is that the prototype uses a Pitts nosebowl (bd's personal favorite). It is fiberglass and I think you can get them from Aircraft Spruce and probably a lot of other places. You'll want to split it into two pieces so you can put it on or take it off without removing the prop. +++ #3537 From: William & Delinda Johnson Subject: 023 Update (exhaust) Bearhawk exhaust, with muffler. I will shorten the exhaust pipe once the cowling is complete. Notice the 90" fixed pitch prop. Also, the engine is not rebuilt yet - I want to get the cowling & baffles done first. http://home.fuse.net/wjohnson/ffexhaust5.jpg http://home.fuse.net/wjohnson/ffexhaust7.jpg Note the damaged WACO in the background. SRE - very rare and beautiful. One of the last WACO's made. We are looking for a Fairchild 24 to add to the collection of projects . . . +++ #3543 From: Bob Romanko Subject: How to Buy an Engine from Bob Barrows I just replied to a personal email from a fellow Bearhawk'er with the following. It was in reference to him JUST asking his girlfriend what engine he should buy for the Bearhawk. Her reply was "Whatever is safe." He was thinking "New Lycoming", but I had another suggestion on how to approach the follow through. Marriage may be in his future, so he needs to approach carefully. As in most sports, when dealing with women, a good follow through is 90% of the game. Here's my reply. Perhaps this can be of help to someone else in the group: ********************** Now, HERE'S how you take it from here. Do this EXACTLY: 1. Wait about two weeks 2. Sometime around then (when you're discussing the Bearhawk) tell her you've been thinking about something "safe" for an engine. Mention that safety is a relative term, especially with engines. Be up front (this is one of the RARE times you will ever do so) and let her know what a NEW O-540 engine costs. Tell her you feel really bad about the cost, but safety is a real concern, and you care for her and want what is best. Let the conversation drift off however it ends from there, with her thinking you're going to be laying out $22,000+ for a new engine. Trust me, we'll make it better in step 4. 3. Wait about another two weeks. (This interval is standard for ALL women, world over) 4. Again, when you're discussing the Bearhawk, tell her you've been thinking more about your engine. Tell her that "should we ever be married" (words single women LOVE to hear) you want to be financially responsible. You want to have money for a safe car for her, a nice home, and give her the freedom to shop at whatever stores she chooses. (By now, she should be swooning, on the verge of fainting in your arms. Pure putty.) NOW'S THE TIME TO STRIKE!!! Say that you can't see spending $22,000+ for an aircraft engine when when you can buy one from Bob Borrows, a well respected, experienced, licensed builder of "safe" aircraft engines, for around $12,000. Tell her you know it's less money than a new one, but you really do feel it's every bit as safe, perhaps even safer since Bob builds them one-at-a-time. Let her know all the wonderful things that she could do with the "extra" (grin) $10,000 you just saved. Vacations, jewelry, clothes, etc. Dream as long as required. 5. Sit back and enjoy your victory. There are many, many more ahead, and you now have an extra $10,000 for a full IFR panel! +++ #3558 From: Bruce A. Frank Subject: Props: Inches of pitch vs. degrees of pitch Does anyone have a conversion table or a formula would tell me how degrees of pitch, such as used on a Warp Drive prop, compares to inches of pitch such as used on McCauley fixed pitch props, like an MFC 8467 (67 is inches of pitch) +++ #3560 From: Russ Erb Subject: [Bearhawk] Props: Inches of pitch vs. degrees of pitch Planter Bob--don't strain your brain cell (sic) at the library. I teach this stuff. Here's the equation: Blade Angle = arctan ( Pitch / (2 Pi r)) where r is the radius from the center of the hub to the location of interest. Note that Pitch and r have to be in the same units. The stated pitch for a propeller is traditionally calculated from the blade angle at the 3/4 radius point. Note that you may not get exact answers unless you know if the propeller manufacturer measures blade angle based on the chord line of the airfoil, the zero lift line of the airfoil, the flat bottom of the airfoil, or some arbitrary reference. +++ #3629 From: Bryan Welch Subject: Nice auto-engine site A friend just pointed out this site to me: http://www.sdsefi.com/ It has great stuff on fuel injection on auto engines. Take a look at the 'aircraft' link at the bottom of the page. With this kind of a thing available, I'm not thinking I'd even consider putting a carb on an auto-engine conversion. +++ #3905 From: v.berthels <11acs@g...> Subject: Re: Franklin 220 Does anyone have any pros & cons dealing with the Franklin 220 for the Bearhawk? This may have been discused before & if so, my apologies, just point me to the thread. +++ #4024 From: Jim Ash Subject: alternative oil filtration Once upon a time there was an automotive aftermarket oil filter add-on that used toilet paper for the filtering medium. One of the companies selling it was named Frantz. Apparently there was a similar product that was STC'd for aviation use. I don't know if it was from the same people or not. Does anybody know if this system is still available anywhere? +++ #4025 From: Donald Schindler Subject: Re: alternative oil filtration I havent seen the Frantz in a very long time, but over the years have tried most all of them except that one. I have used the Airwolf, the ADC(which is just an Oberg for you car guys) and the Terry Capehart spin-on. Here's my meager opinion; the ADC has very limited surface area and is very heavy and expensive and yes, it does have all those gizmo's, but you'll get tired wrenching it apart and spilling the oil. The Capehart is beautiful and has more surface area but big bucks-but real pretty anodized color. I currently use the Airwolf which I really like, and it uses the standard spin-ons. Recent tests indicate the standard spin ons to be overall superior to the metal screen filters due to their ability to embed(hold) dirt that screens cant retain. Just my 2 cents on filters. +++ #4027 From: David McCarroll Subject: Re: alternative oil filtration Aircraft Spruce sells several remote oil filtration systems that use Champion spin-on filters. As for the Franz filter system, the only company company that i know of that uses them extensively is Inland Technologies. They use the tiolet paper filter system on their bio-degradable parts washer system. +++ #4028 From: Subject: Re: alternative oil filtration Another alternative is to use an automotive racing, remote oil filter adapter. This you mount on the firewall, and use normal aircraft oil filter of your chosing. Most use the filter with the valve that opens if the filter becomes blocked. There are many of these remoter filter adapters. DON'T pick one of the pretty, chromed ones that are cheap. Use a heavy duty one that will cost you $30-$50. The cheap ones, which are under $15, look nice but are not beefy enough (in my opinion) for aircraft use. The cost savings is obvious. The downside is weight. They probably weigh more than one of the units "certified" for aircraft. This is one of the ways that us "experimentals" have another choice. Mark Goldberg #444 +++ #4029 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: alternative oil filtration Re: Airwolf filters I put one on my Pitts a couple years ago and it cut the silicon content of my oil analysis by about 50%. We can h ave so much seriusly abrasive stuff in the air here in AZ that we eventualy sand our engines to death, if we're not careful. I also put a Bracket air filter in later and it also helped a lot, but it sucks up some horsepower. It impedes induction air so much that it sucks my alternate airsource door open and I had to put a removable wire bale on the handle to keep it closed. +++ #4034 From: Donald Schindler Subject: Re: alternative oil filtration I am certain Airwolf and ADC has STC's and so does Capehart. You'll have to see if there is a particular STC to go with your aircraft. Im not sure if the Capehart filter is still being offered. These folks always have ads in the major mags and advertise in Trade a Plane too. Good luck Don 068 +++ #4035 From: Tim Subject: Spin on filters....Trade-a-Plane business link These Guy's (El Reno) have advertised spin on filters for years...Also check the link it is a Trade-a-plane 'click-on'....Business directory index... :-) EL RENO AVIATION INC PO BOX 760 1004 S COUNTRY CLUB ROAD EL RENO, OK 73036-0760 USA Phone: 405-262-2387 Fax: 405-262-4572 +++ #4036 From: Rob Gaddy Subject: Re: alternative oil filtration I suppose that everyone knows but.... There are three types of oil filter systems. The first is just the screen on the suction pipe. It just keeps the big chunks from jamming the oil pump. The second type is the full flow filter. Here all the oil supplied by the oil pump is first passed through the filter, then to the berings. There is provision for a pressure relief valve (before or after the filter), and often provision to bypass the filter if it becomes clogged. The third type is known as a polishing filter. Here a small quantity of oil is tapped of the oil gallery of the engine, and passed through a filter designed to removed very small particles. The oil is then returned to the pan. This is often done on large stationary engines, and on some big trucks. This is the type of filter that the toilet paper filter can be used for. I've heard of folks putting the roll of toilet paper in the full flow filter housing (remember the days before the cartrege "spin on" filter?)with dire results. +++ #4076 From: Russ Erb Subject: 0470 > I have been pricing 0470's for some months. I think that is > the way to go but was wondering why you were looking for a > 0470U vice a 0470R (apparently the "R's are from C182's) and > are more readily available. Am I missing something? My first thought was to answer "Two of my friends have O-470Us and are very happy with them." Of course, that's hardly a recommendation unless you know them and thus their credibility. Therefore, I forwarded your question to one of them. Here is my interpretation of what he told me: 1. U creates 230 HP at 2400 RPM. R creates 230 HP at 2650 RPM. Thus the U lets you swing a bigger (more efficient) prop because of the lower RPM (prop tip speed lower). Also lower tip speed is quieter. 2. The U has additional lubrication. No details on exactly how. 3. Because of #1 and #2, U has a 2000 hour TBO. R has a 1500 hour TBO. 4. U has higher compression ratio than R (That's how #1 happens). U requires 100LL, R can run on 80/87 or car gas 5. The U has the "7th stud modification" built in. This makes for a stronger crankcase to cylinder attachment. 6. The U has the "heavy case" which is less likely to crack. 7. The U has the modified integral oil filter, which makes for a better, AD free attachment (oil filter attachment on the R has an AD against it) 8. It's not important to me, but the U can be fitted with O-520 cylinders to make an O-520. In the experimental category, the O-470U can be spun up to 2650 RPM to produce 260 HP. Of course, running at 2650 RPM on a regular basis will probably result in an early overhaul. Therefore, my thought was to set the governor for 2650 RPM max, but only set a maximum of 2400 RPM for normal operations (more like 2200 or less for cruise). That way I should still get long life out of the engine, but have the option to call on the 30 extra ponies if necessary (high altitude or short field or some other max performance situation). As far as I know, the O-470U is relatively AD free. Watch out for an O-470A. They only have two rings per piston and burn more oil. This is all based on the best information I have available at this time. Please feel free to add your own comments. +++ #4086 From: "Donald Schindler" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] 0470 A quick check on the CD rom brings up only one AD 79-05-09 on the 0-470U which is the oil pressure relief valve housing. There might be more but Im using T-Data(which really bites)and you have to really dig to get it all out. Please save me a copy of your latest and greatest CD and I will buy it in Jan or Feb. I am between jobs now and am pinching a penny tight enough to make Lincoln scream. For you guys that are into engines, the Sky Ranch Engineering Manual by John Schwaner is fabulous reading. It's $19.95 from Sacramento Sky Ranch and is nearly 500 pages on operation, failure and repair. +++ #4087 From: joel MAYHALL Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] 0470 If you started with a runout 0470U and used the lower compression pistons of the R, you could take advantage of U's design improvements while using 80/87 or car gas. this could be very desirable when operating in rural areas (Such as the Mojave Dessert). Obviously you would loose some top end power in the trade off. There is a good site on the web to look up engine ADs. It is: http://www.aftd.com:6336/dynaweb/aftdlib/ads/engads To use the listings, find the manufacturer and the engine below. Highlight the engine and then press on the blue arrow in front of the engine listing. This will display all of the ADs. Then click on the ad you want to read and it will appear on the right. +++ #4089 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] 0470 So, how does the 0-470S differ from the R and U? I have spent most of my flight time behind one of these engines in the family's C-180J on Edo 2960's. I'll give you a short history on the maintenance of the engine. Jugs were O/H'd at 900 hrs and the bottom end is still in good shape. Prior to the top O/H, 2 jugs had been O'H'd and a third was re-honed and and had the rings replaced in the first 900 hrs (16 years between O/H and top).It's gone through a couple of starters and at least two mags. The carb was rebuilt twice, the first time by someone that didn't really know what they were doing and the second time to fix the first problem. Oh, BTW, the 0-470 CAN be hand started, even on floats. Just be sure you stand BEHIND the prop when you swing it or you'll have to go for a rather dangerous swim to get back to the cockpit ;-). The engine has only suffered two engine failures in the 19 years we've owned it. One was due to water in the tanks and resulted in an uneventful landing back on the 10,000' runway, the other was the result of fuel mis-management and resulted in $55,000 damage but no injuries. Neither happened to me. The only other interesting problem was while taxiing into a small cove toward a dock. Dad was on the right float watching for rocks and I was in the left seat. At the appropriate time, I pulled the mixture....RIGHT OUT OF THE PANEL! The cable had broken. Not to be easily daunted, I switched off the ifnition. That's when we discovered that the plane was suffering from a mag grounding problem. At this point Dad was feveriously motioning for me to shut off the engine. He turned around to see me holding up the mixture in one hand and the keys in the other ;-). I was able to get out of the cove without any firther problems although I got awfully close to the shore to do it. Once in the open I started fiddling withthe ignition and was able to shut down the engine. However, neither Dad nor I thought of the obvious method to shut it down. How quick can you come up with the other method? It's equipped with an 88" McCaulley Seaplane prop (C-180J) which has been trouble free. The governor does require some adjustment on occassion. There was an interesting article in a recent Custom Planes that went throught the selection process for C/S props. It was quite educational. The Cessna 180 is by far the most popular private plane in my hometown followed, suprisingly, by the Macair Merlin (now distributed by AeroComp). For the most part, top O/H's are required slightly after midlife (1500 hr TBO) but the engines routinely see 1800-2000 hrs on condition. Most guys will keep running the engine until the jugs need repair. The top O/H will ran about $5400 CDN but it could go as high as $9000 CDN for new jugs (1997 dollars). Dad also got a couple of quotes on full O/H's at 900 hrs and the concensus was abotu $20K CDN (probably higher now with our poor dollar). Basically, I would eagerly reccommend the 0-470S as it's been a good engine to us. Granted, teh new, 200 hp, Continental diesel Monoblock certainly looks like it would make a dandy BH engine. Single lever power, no ignition system and the ability to run on Diesel and jet fuel at 70% of the standard fuel burn certainly appeals to me.... +++ #4091 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: engines RE: 0-470 Everyone has their favorite engine and manufacturer, because of that we're making motor mounts for four and six cylinder Lycomings as well as the 0-470, especially since the 0-470 is so reasonably priced. Continentals are well known as needing a little more care in operations primarily because of cylinder cooling problems. Never having operated a Continental for any length of time, I can't comment directly. However, I'm on my fourth IO-360 Lycoming in my Pitts, and every one has run to TBO without doing anything much more than putting gas and oil in it and the IO-360 is, in my eyes, the worse Lycoming of the bunch. As you can guess, I don't baby my engines. They are there to be used and we are constantly chopping the power, letting them rapidly cool in a long descent and then hammering them wide open. I don't give them a moment's thought other than religiously changing the oil at 25 hours on the Hobbs (which is about 20 hours on the tach because of pattern time). +++ #4092 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: engines I guess a lot of the problems have to do with the way the birds are flown. For example, if you are on your forth engine and the other three have gone to TBO, youre talking somewhere in the order of 4000-8000 hrs (debending on what on your new engine and where you started with the first engine) Even if you started in 1960 with the engine, you're still talking between 100-200 hrs per year or between 10-20 years per engine. Our engine is about 2/3's to TBO and is 19 years old. It sees about 50-55 hrs per year on average. Some years it's higher and some it's lower. The engine is laid up every winter and the plane lives in one of the most corrosive climates in North America. Our biggest problems with the cylinders is cracking resulting from corrosion in the top ofthe heads. Granted, that does not mean that the IO-360 is not better than the 0-470. Have you considered making a mount for the Franklins? They are very reasonable priced. Another inderesting engine is the 6 cylinder LOM engine. Has anyone considered them? I know of a Sclepcev Storch near Edmonton that has a 4 cylinder LOM and they are quite pleased with it, but the prop from the same manufacturer was troublesome. +++ #4096 From: Kevin Deutscher bearhwk272@a... Subject: Engine Alphabet Soup Just a few engine tid bits: As some of us work the engine issue a little deeper as we explore our options keep a few things in mind. I will use myself as the example. Selected engine Cont IO-470D. It is a "D" cause that is the way that it was certified. The "D" defined a certain external configuration, power and INTERNAL parts configuration at the time of Certification. My engine was built in 1960, in 1970 the factory did a complete Zero Time There have been 2 other overhauls. The logs have 4000 hrs in it. The only thing original is the nameplate. The case has been updated, crank and rods replaced, new cam and lifters, high volume oil system and large oil cooler. When I rebuild for the Bearhawk installation I will make sure that the parts are the most current approved part # possible. Most of the time the "Letter" is not significant to the engine. The airframe has to have the correct engine letter to be legal. The critical thing to the engine is the part number of the detail components used internally. Check the logs, Check with a reputable rebuilder or the factory to find out what to watch for before you buy that engine. You do not want to be the one to purchase a core with an obosolete,crank, case or rods. Just because a component does not have an AD does not mean that a part has not been superseded. Factory service bulletins can mandate parts changes at overhaul or sooner. Get an education before purchasing....... it is cheaper. Install an oil filter. Due to harmonics issues the selection of a prop and engine go hand in hand. A bad prop / engine combo can reduce TBO big time. I have a preference for fuel injection. A little more complex. A little more weight. No Carb Ice. Smoother operation. More fuel efficient. Better engine diagnostics with an engine monitoring system. Lean of peak operation possible. +++ #4097 From: "Mike Eldredge" Subject: engine shutdown Would it speed things up if you closed the fuel valve then yanked the sump drain? The real question being whether or not the sump drain is downstream of the fuel selector valve... then again, even if it is located between the valve and the engine, fuel would not readily drain, since there is no vent to let air into the line & let fuel out. It might allow air to be sucked IN through the drain & bubble toward the engine, though. Time to study Bingelis on fuel systems... +++ #4121 From: "Tim Anderson" Subject: Engine preserving oil Any suggestions on what may be the best long term preserving oil to use in a continental engine, when the manual doesn't specifcally say "use XXX type oil"?? +++ #4122 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Engine preserving oil Try going on www.aeroshell.com. They have an engine preservative oil called Aeroshell 2F. I don't have any experience with it, just reading their literature. +++ #4126 From: Kevin bearhwk272@a... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Engine preserving > Engine preservative oil called Aeroshell 2F The Aeroshell will work fine for long term storage. A few other tips. Remove the carb or fuel inject. Remove the plugs Drain all the existing oil. Use a solvent or Acetone to remove oil sludge from the crank center hole to the prop hub. If you have a hollow crank with a plug, remove the plug and clean out the cavity. ( oil trapped here will create acids that do bad things ) Install a new filter Overfill the crankcase by several quarts. Roll the engine around or tip it on the hoist to slosh the oil all over. Rotate the crank by hand thru 20 rotations or so.( in the normal dir of rot) Drain all the oil. Refill the case with Clean Preservative Oil. Repeat the sloshing and rotations Lycoming's be sure to invert the engine and soak the cam. Remove the valve rocker covers and spray wash the valve train with the oil. Replace the covers. Spray the exhaust valves thru the exhaust port. Spray into each spark plug hole and rotate the crank to wet the cylinder walls. Replace the plugs using antisieze on the threads. Remove the filter. Drain the oil. Plug all openings. Do not rotate the engine Wipe down the inside of the crank and the prop flange if applicable. Have a tall cool one. +++ #4130 From: Ron Webb Subject: Bearhawk CD and Oil question Just got the Bearhawk CD. Took several months, but was worth the wait. More Info per dollar than I can remember seeing. Good Job! Now for a question that is only partially related to Bearhawks: Can anyone give me any personal experience with using AmsOil in Lycoming engines? I went looking after seeing what happens to aircraft oil at even moderately cold temperatures. At -20F it's like trying to drain peanut butter. A thorough pre-heat is absolutely necessary. In Fairbanks, Alaska in January, -20 is considered a heat wave. If I'm going to run an aircraft engine at all here in the winter, I'll use pre-heats of course, but why not look for better oil as well? Seems AMSOil USED to sell a 20-50 version that was STC'd. Lawyers put a stop to that, but they still sell the oil as 20-50 racing oil. They have had a booth at Oshkosh for years, and can provide much anecdotal evidence that it works fine, and extends engine life. Anybody know about this stuff?? +++ #4134 From: "Owen Davies" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Bearhawk CD and Oil question > Can anyone give me any personal experience with using AmsOil > in Lycoming engines? A mechanical engineer friend of mine, who's been a pilot for years -- REO in Cambodia before we admitted we were in 'Nam, crop duster, airplane rebuilder, etc. -- uses nothing else, from 0SMOH on. Adds a bypass filter to his planes. Says that he'd be comfortable just running them forever, replacing filters on schedule and adding enough new oil to replace whatever's burned/ejected, but never bothering to drain and replace. He was talking about the STCed version, but I doubt there is much difference in the racing oil. FWIW, he does the same thing in his cars, and his ancient Ram Charger went over 300K miles. +++ #4149 From: Russ Erb Subject: More engine poop This is from the Skywagon.org site: Continental O470U Engine - The Good Things By Steve Cunningham December 4, 1998 I have owned a 180K with a O470U for the past ten years and feel there is alot of misinformation on the this engine floating around. Most of it started in the late seventies and early eighties due to cylinder nitriding( which has been corrected) and the stigma has stayed. I have owned eleven different 180/185's and have liked them all. The late model 185's are an absolute dream in every way and the 180' s with the other series O470 series are also fantastic machines. The fact is, if you want the most fuel efficient skywagon the O470U is the best choice! Don't believe for a second that the O470U is any more or less reliable than any of the others. It is the highest of all skywagon's in compression ratio at 8.6 : 1 ( IO520 is 8.5 : 1). This makes for more heat generation and calls for excellent baffling for cooling. The engine is an IO470U 260 HP with the injection removed and slowed to 2400 RPM to make it 230HP available for the 180K from 1977 through 1981. They have a four counterweight crank and piston oil squirters, and this is why the Ponk STC uses the bottom end of it or the 520 for their STC. Bonaire and Texas Skyways both have STC's to move the RPM up on the O470U to 2625 and 2600 respectively (this makes the engine 252 / 250 HP). These are available to you. (All of Bonaire's STC's are up for Auction on DEC. 9th so this may change on this one.) I can tell you first hand that this makes for a great machine with a speed and range capability unmatched in ANY skywagon with any engine!!! As with all O470's and IO520's they have had their problems and there is always a reason. With a little homework into who builds the engine along with the components used I promise you will not be disappointed. I have played with this thing for years looking into every engine, prop, engine mount and combination thereof and will debate it with anyone. I cannot tell you how many times I have surprised my flying buddies with this airplane by dragging them into a scenario that I know where this engine airframe combo shines. The O470R as stated is a very fine engine but don't even try to compare it in performance with the O470U because it cannot compete. The well inform engine shops will tell you as yours have that it's the best 470. My info is accurate and consistent with all the 180K's attending our fly-ins regularly. The word is out don't mess with a 180K with the "U " engine unless you want to be embarrassed especially one with the RPM move up. They don't need to stop for gas and they go fast when the're doing it. After writing this initial article a fellow 185 driver commented that the IO520 with GAMI Injectors would be more fuel efficient than the O470U. My brother's 1981 185 has GAMI injectors along with a JPI 700 and Shadin. At 50 degrees lean of peak can't get as low fuel consumption as the O470U at 6500 feet or above. I also have a Shadin in the 180 with a GEM monitor. Flying Side by Side the 180 will go further, also All 180's from 1979 and on have wet wings 88 GAL. 84 useable. Bladder tanks were not an option in the aircraft. The two bladed prop on the 180 is more fuel efficient at altitude and the 3 bladed 185 needs 100 RPM (both have digital tach's) more to fly at my side burning .5 of a gal more per hour. Also the 185 needs more fuel to climb to altitude. These two aircraft are identical with exception of prop and engine including the tire size (both are 1981's even the paint scheme is the same). The GAMI injectors are a great improvement! To further add fuel to the fire John Frank from the Cessna Pilots Association added his comments: "In all this debate on the O-470R engine vs. the O-470U engine I notice that you folks are overlooking one area, high altitude performance. The slower turning U engine does not 'breath' as well as the R engine and while torque is greater at low altitude power output is lower at high altitude. Just look at the difference in service ceilings in the year before the change (1976) and the year of the change (1977). In both the case of the 180 and 182 service ceiling was reduced by around 1,000 feet when the U engine was installed even though gross weight remained the same. Remember Cessna shifted to the U engine for one reason and one reason only, to get the same max power at lower RPM so that the aircraft would be quieter on takeoff. Noise certification requirements had changed drastically from the early fifties to the mid-seventies. The decision had nothing to do with longer TBO, higher compression, etc. The U is a fine engine and given that there will be less frictional wear by generating same power at lower rpm there is a valid reason to feel that the engine might last longer in hours between overhauls. However given that the R engine has better high altitude performance, is low compression so it can operate on auto fuel ( a trait that could become very, very important in the next few years) as well as less cylinder head stress, I can think of no truly compelling reason to replace an R with a U." I replied with the following: The U engine, as John Frank stated, was slowed for Noise Certification. There are two separate STC's which allow the RPM to be increased back to the original 2600 or 2625 RPM making this engine 250 HP / 252 HP. The service ceiling is then in excess of 19000 feet ( I have been there with over 2800lbs and ISA +7) with this engine. The engine breaths better when turning faster than the slowed 2400 RPM. Higher compression engines need this higher rpm to get the horsepower and extra torque. This is the same for all normally aspirated high compression engines, IO520 included. The higher you fly the faster you should be turning your engine! High compression and high RPM go together for high engine efficiency. I attended the Santa Maria, CA 180/185 convention July 97 and the Cessna Pilot Association seminar on engine management. The speaker said that the position of CPA was to fly over-squared. I questioned him on the matter regarding the higher compression engines not breathing and the inability to generate HP at the higher altitudes and he stated again that was CPA's position. This slower RPM is great if you're not on floats, not going anywhere fast, nor up high. The aircraft will fly faster and climb better at high RPM than in any over-squared condition. Power is proportional to RPM which is very clear from our engine power charts, and climb performance is mere extra horsepower. I realize the benefits of the slower RPM but there is a very large trade-off of performance. John's comments regarding the U engine confirm it. Terry Capehart, originally from Ultimate Engines, agrees as does Monty Barrett from Barrett Performance. Monty did the dyno test for Bonaire for the 252HP U engine and stated the HP and Torque increased well above the 2400 RPM values. So why have all the U engines owners in all 180/182's not increased the RPM to what the engine was design for ? Because most U owners are not aware the extra horsepower is available to them. The McCauley 204 prop can remain the same as it also is certified for the higher RPM of 2600. The service ceiling will go up making the aircraft more flexible. All this makes for better versatility and enjoyment. Regarding John's fuel concerns ......besides all the aircraft with the U engine, what will all the 185's / 210's etc. do without 100LL ? Shortly following the various interactions on this topic the folks from Texas Skyways responded with the following note: The O-470-U engine is one of the toughest engines on the market. There are many advantages over the 470-R, which is also a good engine. The Texas Skyways O-470-U/TS develops an easy 250 HP and has a 2500 hour TBO. Your are correct about not using auto fuel in the O-470-U. Auto fuel "usually" works well, even in a 470-U, or in the IO-520 engines. It has caused a few engine failures. We recommend aircraft fuel for aircraft engines. Texas Skyways, in conjunction with South Dakota State University, is developing an engine to operate on "Ethanol". We have modified an O-470-U/TS even further in order to use Ethanol. We can get over 300 HP using the very tough "U" engine. We also have 2500 hour TBO's on our O-520-F/TS and O-550-F/TS engines for Cessna 180 and 182 aircraft. Steve Cunningham +++ #4316 From: bcox@a... Subject: New take on old questions I have Russ' CD, have been studying the Bearhawk E-group and will be ordering plans soon. After perusing this info, I am in favor of either a Lycoming 540 or Continental 470 as powerplant. Kevin (#272) and Budd had mentioned that a fixed pitch prop may be a pretty good compromise for weight and simplicity. Maybe buying the prop first will get my priorities mixed, but I may be able to get a deal now. Besides, it will look good on the wall as I commence building. I have a line on a NOS prop from an L-5. I believe that this would be a wooden Sensenich that was installed on a Lycoming O-435 with 190 hp. I also found a couple of used ones that were likely for the 200 hp Ranger powered Fairchild. I looked these up on the Sensenich website. Diameters are ~85-86" and pitch ~57-58". Since wood is more forgiving than metal, I wonder if this, installed with a harmonic balancer, would be workable. Any opinions on these combinations? Is 225 hp too much for these? I know that there are a number of Lycoming applications with fixed pitch (Cherokee 6). I'm not sure if the Continental would be suitable, particularly with the counterweights on the crank (less forgiving of a lot of RPM changes). I'm now flying behind a pair of IO-470s (C310K) and really like the idea of sticking with something I'm familiar with. OK gang, go ahead and let me have it with both barrels. +++ #4317 From: Kevin bearhwk272@a... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] New take on old questions Welcome aboard. Get them plans and get building. My two cents, buy tools, build plane, propeller is way down the list. Pick your engine, then your prop. Selection of incorrect propeller properties can lead to less than optimal aircraft performance. I will be waiting on my prop until a few Bearhawks take wing and I can see what others performance data is. PS Do not get to concerned about counterweights, the engines need them. +++ #4325 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] New take on old questions A couple of things to note. Until you have selected an engine, don't bother withthe prop. Even if it is the right pitch and diameter, there are differences in hup patterns for various props. For example, an 0-200 prop will not fit my Franklin. There are some 0-470 with FP propellors out there. The most notable is about half of the fleet of L-19's run with FP props mounted on 0-470's. +++ #4330 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] New take on old questions > I have Russ' CD, have been studying the Bearhawk E-group and > will be ordering plans soon. After perusing this info, I am > in favor of either a Lycoming 540 or Continental 470 as > powerplant. Either is excellent choice with 470 being cheaper, much less power > I have a line on a NOS prop from an L-5. I believe that this > would be a wooden Sensenich that was installed on a Lycoming > O-435 with 190 hp. I also found a couple of used ones that > were likely for the 200 hp Ranger powered Fairchild. I looked > these up on the Sensenich website. Diameters are ~85-86" and > pitch ~57-58". Since wood is more forgiving than metal, I > wonder if this, installed with a harmonic balancer, would be > workable. Any opinions on these combinations? Get a prop guy to figure it for you, but I wouldn't go with a wood prop unless it was designed for the application and engine. Get a fixed metal prop you can repitch, if need be. For these big engines they aren't TOO expensive. And don't forget L-19's used fixed props on 0-470's. +++ #4341 From: Russ Erb Subject: [Bearhawk] New take on old questions > Maybe buying the prop first will get my priorities mixed, but > I may be able to get a deal now. Props really have to be matched to the airplane and the engine. Changing either one will change the prop requirements. As for fixed pitch props, unless you can identify an existing application that matches the intended use pretty closely in horsepower and airspeed, more likely than not it won't be the optimal prop. For instance, a fixed pitch prop on an O-320 in a Cessna 172 will be way underpitched if put on the same O-320 in an RV-4 because of the airspeed difference. Note that a fixed pitch prop will give you a cg that starts farther aft. One of the several reasons that I'm interested in the constant speed prop is that it can better compensate for not being matched perfectly. I've heard stories of guys with 5 props on their wall. These were the props they went through while iterating to the right one for the airplane. Unfortunately, I don't know of any ground adjustable props that will handle our range of horsepower. +++ #4348 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] New take on old questions Thanks for your input (and that of others). I'll hold off on the prop for now, and do things in a more conventional order. Just a note, you may have already checked out the Moravia web site, www.moraviation.com. Hit the Props hot button, then the LOM hot button. They have a fixed pitch wooden prop for the LOM that is rated at 216 hp, and claim that they can build it with an SAE flange. The next prop is a ground adjustable model, V341. Claims that it can be made with CW or CCW rotation, but no mention of possible SAE flange. It's rated at closer to 230 hp. Don't know if these would be OK or not in the long run. The prices on the imported LOM engines are about $20K for an M337 of 230 hp at 3000 rpm. I don't think that's such an outstanding price when compared with an overhauled Lycoming or Continental of similar power. Based on this, the propellers may not be any bargain, either. As far as mission, I would think that the L-19, L-5 or even Fairchild 24 would be closer to mission profile than comparing a 172 to an RV. I do, however catch the drift of what everyone is saying. Airframe first, then select engine, then select prop. +++ #4357 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] New take on old questions First, the only comments I've heard about the LOM engine is from a guy building a Shlepcev Storch near Edmonton. He's used the LOM engine and prop and his comments were that the engine is great, but the prop leaves a lot to be desired. I'm not sure what the specific problems were, but if you search on the Storch you can find his page and get his comments first hand. The L-19 is probably not a great match for mission profiles. THe L-19 was designed to take-off from extremely short, unprepared strips (OK, this kind of matches) and then loiter over an area at 70-90 mph. THe ones we flew seldom got over 100 mph in cruise basically, the cruise was completely compromised in favour of climb and TO performance which is where the L-19 excelled! That's also how you can tow three SGS 2-33A gliders and still cruise at 90 mph. I still think that the L-19 is possibly the best glider tug available. +++ #4576 From: "William & Delinda Johnson" Subject: 023 Update I have been lurking for the past 4 weeks without a post! So, here goes: Just to stir up trouble - my opinion on cylinders. I have decided to buy Superior parts and cylinders for both my Lycoming and Continental engines. I came to that conclusion while gathering the stuff needed to rebuild my O200 engine for the Culver. Cheaper to buy cylinders than have the O200 cylinders rebuilt. Anyone have a different view on whose cylinders and parts are the best???? +++ #4577 From: "Paul Foster" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] 023 Update Local engine builder now recommends new cylinders for both O200 and 0300 rather than rebuild. Wish he had figured that out before we overhauled our 0300 in C172. We lost three clyinders at about 500 hours after rebuild and then sold the airplane so do not know how the rest held up. Buy new cylinders. The same rebuilder is now using many Superior cylinders with few problems. +++ #4578 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: Cylinders RE; cylinders Believe it not, but in four IO-360 engine rebuilds, I only put new jugs on this last time. The first two times we didn't do anything but cross hatch them. Went to TBO on all of them. I used Lycoming jugs last time around, simply because that was the period fo time Superior was having problems and Mattituck prefers Lycoming parts. Just me rambling, no solid info to share. +++ #4598 From: Tim Subject: V-6 & mount pics...NASA I've uploaded and combined 2 quick pics of a V-6 installation from an indoor Toronto aviation trade show I was at in 88.....Think this would look awesome hanging off a BHawk Firewall :-)....Had Beers this week with Colin Norris, he is the instructor for the Cold Weather Survival Training. NASA is returning to Cold Lake this month for the training, but with a new twist. The media is going out in the field (camping) with one of the groups and will be on the tube eventually....V6 pics> +++ #4709 From: "Donald Schindler" Subject: Bearhawk heat What type of heating system does Bob use for his birds? Will there be any provision for heat in the kit?(Note to Budd-a yes here could be enough to swing me) +++ #4710 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Bearhawk heat Re: kit heat We're tooling for the motor mounts now and one of the concerns is having the room for both heat and mufflers. Stay tuned. +++ #4711 From: Corky Scott charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Digest Number 288 > Re: kit heat > > We're tooling for the motor mounts now and one of the concerns > is having the room for both heat and mufflers. Stay tuned. Hmmm, in Tony Bingellis' book Sportplane Building, he has a diagram of a heat muff around a muffler. Kindof like killing two birds with one stone, although the saying has an unfortunate connotation. :-I +++ #4713 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: Kit heat, Part II Most of the time, heaters are part of the muffler system, and our's will be also. We just haven't gotten far enough on that part of the design to give details yet. We won't be doing the exhaust ourselves, but will have a supplier available with a system that works with our mounts. Hopefully, it'll be a stock system that can be scrounged off of something else. I wish I had more information, but don't. Just know that we want to offer the option for a quieter, warmer cabin. +++ #4716 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: re: Bearhawk heat > What type of heating system does Bob use for his birds? Will > there be any provision for heat in the kit? (Note to Budd-a > yes here could be enough to swing me) Water heat for the cabin has always struck me as one reason to pursue an auto conversion. But aside from that, I've always wondered why conventional-powered engine installations don't draw warm air from the oil-cooler. Is there just not enough heat being transfered, or not enough temp rise to make it useful? One could put the oil-cooler on either side of the firewall, each has its own set of pros and cons. +++ #4717 From: "Robert L. Thomasson" Subject: [Bearhawk] re: Bearhawk heat > But aside from that, I've always wondered why > conventional-powered engine installations don't draw warm air > from the oil-cooler. Is there just not enough heat being > transferred, or not enough temp rise to make it useful? I *think* that ducting heated air from the oil cooler into the cabin would stand a good chance of restricting the free flow of air through the cooler. It might warm the cabin OK, but at the price of not cooling the oil enough. +++ #4718 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] re: Bearhawk heat Plus any one who has blown an oil cooler can attest to the ugly image of all that crap coming into the cabin. It's one of those kinds of ideas that if it was worth doing, someone would be doing it, but I've never seen oil cooler air used for anything on any airplane. We're not going to do any pioneering here. The Bearhawk is based on simplicity and doing stuff that is known to work and we're not going to mess with the concept. +++ #4720 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: re: Bearhawk heat > I *think* that ducting heated air from the oil cooler into the > cabin would stand a good chance of restricting the free flow > of air through the cooler. Too much back-pressure. Hmmm. Have no idea what normal pressures or flows would be like. > Plus any one who has blown an oil cooler can attest to the > ugly image of all that crap coming into the cabin. Plowing in when an exhaust manifold springs a crack conjures up unpleasant images as well. Better the devil you know? What are the relative frequency of oil-cooler leaks vs. cracks under the heat muffs? > It's one of those kinds of ideas that if it was worth doing, > someone would be doing it, but I've never seen oil cooler air > used for anything on any airplane. That I can believe. (But picture the little kid continuing to ask, "Why?") If one were to leave the under-cowl oil cooler in place, and add a second radiator inside the cabin (w/ three-speed fan!) and valves to control flow of cabin oil (and w/ no provision to stop flow through the stock cooler) -- a'la a car's heater -- one would have smaller holes in the firewall (oil lines vs. a scat duct), all the original cooling capacity plus some additional, and a method to stop the flow of oil into the cabin if needed in an emergency (like in Phoenix on an August afternoon.) I'd gain some weight in the extra radiator, lines and fans, but save some in the muff and ducting. (Adds a fair bit takes out not too much I'd guess.) I'd need to work the details such that oil would actually flow through the cabin branch. If temp-rise across the oil radiator in a single pass is an issue that has kept people from using it in the past, note that re-circulating cabin air over the core would continue to warm it, vs. just a single pass of fresh (cold) air for the under-cowl version. Now if I can just work in an air-conditioner, I could have a dehumidifier for the defrosters... > We're not going to do any pioneering here. The Bearhawk is based > on simplicity and doing stuff that is known to work and we're not > going to mess with the concept. Oh yeah, my montra was/is "Keep it simple, get it flying..." +++ #4721 From: Tim Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] re: Bearhawk heat....catalog goodies Rotax has a small heater core that is used for cabin heat with their water cooled 2 - 4 stokes........Mount an inline on/off valve, using a fan or a phenum w/ram in your auto conversion, would be a nice application.....Or as mentioned, an Oil Cooler. Kitfox catalog is online in PDF format (Feb 2001 shopping online) , I've put a link below and put up the OIL COOLER option data in our BHawk 'Files Area' you might find some useable 'goodies' here at this baby bearhawk site ;-) ......Kitfox .....Kitfox Oil Cooler Pics/data +++ #4723 From: "Tim Anderson" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] re: Bearhawk heat....catalog goodies I had one of those heaters in my Kitfox, (removed it when I got to Texas). Good in theory, but not much heat from the coolent. It was luke warm, better than nothing. It didn't allow me to fly in warm comfort when I was up in Alaska. +++ #4724 From: "Dan Montee" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] re: Bearhawk heat First let me say I've never built an airplane and I'm barely a pilot (low time private pilot) but I do have experience building and racing cars. There is not a racing organization that I know of that would even allow you out of the tech barn with an oil cooler vented into the cockpit, much less mounted in the cockpit. If you ever experience a spike in oil pressure due to an engine failure which restricts the oil flow ( debris in the oil line ) or a relief valve stuck in the closed position, you'll find that the oil cooler is the weakest link in the oil supply system. The cooler opens up like an exploded beer can. Most auto engine oil pumps put out 12 to 18 gals oil/minute at pressure and I'd assume that an aircraft engine puts out about the same. My point is that in no time you have an AWFUL lot of 200+degree F oil sprayed upstream of your cabin heat air flow, kinda like a medieval boiling oil bath. Cracked or broken exhaust present their own problems but that you can use detection devices to ID. Dan Montee #415 +++ #4732 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] re: Bearhawk heat >If you ever experience a spike in oil pressure due to an engine >failure which restricts the oil flow ( debris in the oil line ) >or a relief valve stuck in the closed position, you'll find >that the oil cooler is the weakest link in the oil supply >system. The cooler opens up like an exploded beer can. Most >auto engine oil pumps put out 12 to 18 gals oil/minute at >pressure and I'd assume that an aircraft engine puts out about >the same. My point is that in no time you have an AWFUL lot of >200+degree F oil sprayed upstream of your cabin heat air flow, >kinda like a medieval boiling oil bath. The usual hot water heater setups I've seen have a panel mounted push/pull cable to the valve on the heater hose. If there is a leak in the cabin heat exchanger a quick grab of the control cuts off the water (actually shunts it back to the engine removing the heater core from the loop). Many have mounted the heater core on the engine side of the firewall with a slide door to close off airflow into the cabin when needed. The air entering the forward side of the heater core is through a dedicated duct so that no fumes from the engine compartment can enter the cabin. I have flown behind a Ford V-6 with this setup with outside temps around 20degF. The cabin became so warm at cruise that we were comfortable in our shirt sleeves (with no door seals) and the Lab in the back seat was panting. +++ #4737 From: Rob Gaddy zippydogg@a... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: Kit heat, Part II One question and one observation. A question anyone in our group that flys in the colder and wetter parts of the world. Do you think that windshield defrost would be needed in the BH? An observation. Even if the heater is good, and especially if it is good, I think that all persons in the aircraft should be dressed for the weather in the area that they are flying over. I used to fly in the AF from here in Phoenix, we had to wear our jackets eventhough the ramp temp was often in the 80's because we flew over the mountains where the temps at night were below freezing. As good aviators we all know that it would be a pisser to make a successful forced landing, then have to burn the plane to keep warm. +++ #4738 From: Russ Erb Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: Kit heat, Part II > A question anyone in our group that flys in the colder and > wetter parts of the world. Do you think that windshield > defrost would be needed in the BH? I doubt the Mojave Desert qualifies as a colder and wetter part of the world, but I did see the benefit of defrost once. Taxiing out in a Cessna 180 on a cold day when the frost had accumulated on the windshield, the pilot was looking out a small hole on his side where the defrost worked. It wasn't on my side so I couldn't see a thing. You don't want to scrape plexiglass like you do your car windshield. I was thinking of installing another flapper valve and running a tube up toward the windshield. Another friend claims all you need to do is cut a few vents in the top of the glareshield. The heat from the heater and avionics will convect up and defrost the windshield. +++ #4750 From: "William & Delinda Johnson" Subject: 023 Exhaust With all the discussions around exhausts and heat, I updated the web site with some exhaust pics. I will post some wing building pics when I find time - I am busy building! http://home.fuse.net/wjohnson/ffexhaust1.jpg http://home.fuse.net/wjohnson/ffexhaust3.jpg http://home.fuse.net/wjohnson/ffexhaust7.jpg http://home.fuse.net/wjohnson/ffexhaust9.jpg Enjoy - 023 will have plenty of heat! +++ #4773 From: Wil Graff wgraff@j... Subject: Fw: Re: [Bearhawk] Bearhawk Building Status I'm using an O-470R with a Hartzell constant speed prop. Yes I'll keep the group updated on the first flight. +++ #4786 From: "vic" <11acs@g...> Subject: Re: [o-0) Here's a good article on the O-470 by Paul Brevard that is posted on AvWeb. http://www.avweb.com/articles/o470.html +++ #4901 From: Corky Scott charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Digest Number 301 > Do you know if a Ross planetary reduction reverses the > direction of rotation, or if the SVX rotates anticlockwise? Ohhhhh let's see if I can remember this, this is from auto mechanics 101. All auto engines rotate clockwise when you are standing in front of the car staring at them. When you turn them around and have the rear facing the front, they then rotate in the direction most aircraft engines rotate, that is, counterclockwise when you are looking at them from in front of the prop. VW Beatle engines I believe break this rule. Most planetary gear reduction units continue the existing rotation of the engine, I'm thinking that the Ross reduction unit does the same. One of the bad things about using a planetary gearset on a V type engine is that you loose prop clearance; that's why you hear of people inverting V engines, something Steve Wittman did but I'm not sure prop clearance was his reason. Subaru's have the crank centerline pretty much in the middle of the engine so no great gain would be achieved by inverting it. With a belt drive or chain drive, you gain prop clearance and can lower the engine in the cowl. +++ #4906 From: "Donald Schindler" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Building Status Ray Thurston's Project Thanks for the reply. I know that Subaru engines are being used in experimentals with proven success. I dont know much about reduction drive units however. I very much favor six cylinder Lyc's or Continentals. I have dynamically balanced hundreds of engines and a six cylinder Continental that is balanced is a beautiful thing. An 0-470 for a Bearhawk I think would be a smart choice. The six cylinder Lyc's can be very fussy and can detune their counterweights very easily, plus Continental parts are usually 30% cheaper. That's my 2 cents. Good luck Don 068 +++ #4916 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Franklin Engines Here's some info I'd like to pass on. Bruce has been invaluable in helping me finish my installation. He's "good people ;-). Hope this helps... >> I was wondering if you do full engine rebuilds? Yes I overhaul primarily the 6A335's & 6A350's. I also do a helicopter conversion that weighs in @ 280#. The smaller is 210 hp & the larger one is 235 hp. The helo conversion will be popular with the experimental guys cause you cant get as much power with 280 # with any other engine without turbo. I use 2 shops , one in S.Carolina & the other In Indiana to supplement my overhaul & repair efforts. We can get 145-150 hp from the 4A235 by using 10.5 to 1 pistons & a modified intake & exhaust system (sim to yours) using the MA4-5 carb & we are working on fuel injection & electronic ignition for the 4 cyl. We can use the MT constant speed 3 bladed prop & get 150+at 2800 rpm. Most of this can be seen & touched at snfun this year. I am passing this info on to John Nichols who is chief engineer for Classic aire & Southwind aviation, Johns Father is a respected FAA DER in the Southern Region, & John is a hi tec/Advanced designer for Lockheed Martin & has lots of good ideas on future Franklin use. Together, we.can answer any of the questions the experimental guys have. Heres an ad on Classic Aire!!!! +++ #5008 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re:Now Offering Lycoming engines We've just had some conversations with Lycoming and Hartzell which are going to result in us being offered OEM pricing on both. That being the case we're going to be able to offer all valid plans holders super discount prices on new engines and props. Lycoming was very specific, however, that if they even hear of one of these engines going on anything other than a Bearhawk, they'll be right up our tail pipe. Don't ask me prices right now, as they haven't given us definitive pricing, but some time in the next six weeks or so, we'll be in a position to ship engines. Preliminary numbers from them say 40% deposit at time of order and 3 months to deliver. We'll be offering their most popular engines: O-360 A1A 180 HP IO-360 A1B6 200 HP Counter weighted crank, forward facing injector (45 pounds more weight than O-360) O-540 F1B5 260 HP 2800 RPM Retard Breaker magnetos (that Lycoming recommends), this engine used on Robinson R44, around 375 lb IO-540 D4A5 260 HP, 2700 RPM, with counter weights for Hartzell "compact" prop around 380 - 385 lbs (used on Comanche 260, Sia Marchetti SF 260 The rationale for choosing these particular engines is that they are high volume engines for Lycoming, and the best deals are to be had with these models. We have the same deal cooking with Hartzell and they are getting back to us with recommended models and pricing to match these engines. THIS IS JUST A HEADS-UP AND NOW YOU KNOW AS MUCH AS WE DO ABOUT THE DEAL. IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, GET BACK TO ME OFF-LINE. +++ #5085 From: "Rod Smith" Subject: SL Tubing Passing on some news from the Biplane Hanger. I gots some good news I think. Seems the EM Jorgensen(sp?), a steel manufacturer, has come to an agreement with PATCO, the company that used to make SL tube, and will be getting the dies to make SL tube. EMJ will be making the stuff. Now, I doubt it will be at the current prices as they will have to work in the cost of buying the tooling. So, we didn't cancel the order of SL tube we made with Dillsburg (1.5yr model 12 production supply plus some for the McCullocoupe....Over $10k order). So, sweatith it not. Thall shalt have-ith SL tube when thy needith it! +++ #5086 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] M14-P Derivitives My info on the direct drive engines comes directly from the Romanians who are doing the mod with the GPU gear box, which, I believe, is a straight, no reduction gear box. In fact, I was standing there when we wrestled one of the nose cases off a GPU engine and packed it for them to take back to romania. The AeroStar plant in Bachau romania is the only plant still building the M-14 on a regular basis. They are doing the engines for George Coy (gesoco@together.net) who imports them and I believe all of Steve's engines come through him. If you want the straight poop, including the prices. E-Mail George. Include the biplane e-mail you sent me and tell him I told you to contact him. Kevin Kimball is one of the brightest guys in the business (he's going to do the installation engineering on the Desert Hawk) and is the go-to guy for M-14 operations, but my info from George Coy is less than a week old. Of course, George sells engines, so that may have something to do with the difference in the stories. +++ #5100 From: "Rod Smith" Subject: Fw: M14-P Derivatives For those of you that might be interested in this type of engine, I am forwarding George's reply: It is true. We call it the M14D ( for direct drive). The engines have a spline drive that accepts the standard U.S. Air core 20 spline hub for a wooden propeller. We are also making new propeller hubs. I am preparing a package of information about the engines. They produce 220 hp at 2000 RPM. George Coy ++ #5247 From: "William & Delinda Johnson" Subject: Need Help with 023 After much reading and thinking (and watching Kent's videos), I still don't know what to do. So, since opinions are always plentiful on this group, what thickness, alloy, and temper should be used to make the Bearhawk nose bowl? 3003H14 6061-0 (then heat treat to T6 - may cost lots of dollars!) 6061-T6 (not sure I could form the nose bowl at that temper) .050 - 3003H14 is my first choice but will it be strong enough? I plan to use .040 - 3003H14 for some of the Culver fairings. Any help from the metal workers out there would be appreciated. +++ #5248 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Need Help with 023 You want an opinion? Okay, here's one... Even "The Bob" was satisfied with a fiberglass Pitts nosebowl available from your favorite aircraft supplier. I have no intention of arguing with him on that one. That's an opinion. That's the best I can do, since I have no answer for your question. I'm sure the Tin Man will have one. Depending on when I decide to go visit the Tin Man for a week or so, I may fly #164 initially with fiberglass fairings, but I think it would be fun to eventually form metal fairings for it, for no other reason than very few homebuilders know how to do it and that will make it all the more unique. +++ #5249 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Need Help with 023 No matter which material you use, you're going to have to anneal it several times during the forming process. I can't find my aluminum book right now, but I think that 6061 can be rehardened by holding it at elevated temps (large oven at 300degF to 500degF-- you'll have to research the correct temps) +++ #5250 From: "Bill Cox" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Need Help with 023 I have limited experience, but I have worked with the 6061-T6 when I couldn't get T4 for rib forming and it is hard. Even the 6061-T4 requires annealing for much forming. The .050 3003H14 will work nicely annealed as necessary as you go along. Most of the older airplanes had nosebowls formed of a soft alloy and they held up well over the years when not abused. Ron Corvell has an excellent video of forming a lakes roadster nose that applies to the nose bowl also. It is similar to Kent's videos. I plan to do metal fairing for the struts, but use the glass pitts nose bowl for now. Do you plan a set of metal wheel pants? +++ #5251 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Need Help with 023 Another opinion in line with Russ's: anything that is used very much and made of aluminum is going to get dented and/or crack. As much as I hate to admit it, unless I was going to polish it and be a real show off, I'd always make nosebowls and pants out of glass. Having had alujinum pants, I can tell you that you spend too much time worrying about them. Or maybe I've gotten so old I'm out of patience with worrying about them. I'd do all the fairings in aluminum, but the nosebowl and pants, if used, would be glass. +++ #5253 From: "William & Delinda Johnson" Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Need Help with 023 I am not planning wheel pants since most of my flying will be off grass with a fixed pitch prop. (With all the extra horsepower, a cruise prop should give good take off performance and a cruise of 120+MPH I hope - lighter weight, no worry about the nose down thing, etc). Wheel pants would add a little speed I guess but are probably more important to the 150MPH crowd. However, I would like an aluminum nose bowl - I am not a fan of fiberglass. Those who intend to use the pitts style nose bowl with an 0540 and Hartzel constant speed prop may run into the same problem I did (Spinner diameter). Also, the muffler arrangement may require a slightly different shape on the nose. Budd may find a solution for the kits that will work for everyone as I was looking at the new high performance Hartzel. Having said all that, I just spent a small fortune at TM Technologies. Aluminum welding starter kit #2, more video's, books, forming starter kit, anvil, and much more. A very nice lady took my order and the stuff should ship next week. Can't wait to start learning another skill. I will have to make a section of my web site open only to the non-fiberglass crowd (just kidding). .050-3003H14 is my choice for the Bearhawk - .040-3003H14 for the Culver nose bowl. Russ, only fiberglass pictures on that CD . . . +++ #5257 From: "Kent White" Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Composite vs aluminum Using f'glas parts off the shelf is most easy. Making aluminum is next easy. Use 3003, H14, and in the .050 thickness should be fine. Use a f'glas bowl to copy and fit to, if one is available. Remember that it will either be a lot of forming and a little welding, or a lot of welding and a little forming. Do not be afraid of a little filler and primer. Least easy is making out of composite. Here is my humorous thought on the "compost vs aluminum" controversy: Composite: weighs more takes longer tough to repair questionable longevity finish the job, lose the medical Building anything with a spatula causes an instant loss of self-respect. +++ #5274 From: "Donald Schindler" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Need Help with 023 I know a little about how it's done at Ken Brock Manufacturing, which makes spinners for Thorps. Here is a quote " Prior to spinning, the .062 aluminum is drawn to help maintain a minimum of .060 thickness at the rear of the spinner." The Thorp master newsletter then gives these following guidelines " the plans specify that the spinner be heat treated to 6061-T4 condition. To minimize warping, heat treat before making the cutouts. Spinner bulkheads will warp and do not need to be hardened anyway. Do not use cad plated screws, for this will cause embrittlement around the holes. If you use flush mounted screws to mount your spinner, be careful that the holes do not work oversize and you lose your spinner." The spinner on my own airplane came off the very first flight. The test pilot thought it had thrown a blade and he shut the engine down and dead sticked into Torrence in LA. A faulty spinner can ruin your whole day. Hope this little info help. +++ #5291 From: t18skyguy@y... Subject: Re: Need Help with 023 If you have access to back issues of EAA publications, there is an article on "Spinner Safety and Installation" in the Febuary 1987 issue of Sport Aviation page 27, and another article in Light Plane World(now Experimenter) on "Installing Spinners" January, 1988 page 22. +++ #5315 From: "Terry Simons" Subject: IO-520 I've been reading the posts with interest about the various engine choices. I know that Bob did the Lycoming 540 in proto-2, and I have seen a lot of discussion about the O-470 Cont. I've been wondering if there was something wrong with the 520 Cont. Isn't it roughly the same as externally as the 470. I'm not near far enough along to be concerned, but have just been wondering. +++ #5326 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Oil Coolers OK, I have a question on oil coolers. The Franklin I'm using requires a remote oil cooler. I've priced out the Steward Warner oil coolers at about $400 USD +. There is a company called Positech that make aircraft coolers for around the $200 USD mark. Then, I called my local performance automotive shop and found that they sell new automotive coolers for between $50-$120 USD. The question is...what's the difference (outside the fact that us rich pilots can affors to spend $600 USD on an "aircraft" oil cooler ;-). They are all the same approximate size and use the same NPT threads to hook up. My understanding is that there is nothing but metal inside these things so there shouldn't be anything that is affected by any of the aviation chemicals. As to cooling efficiency, an aircraft oil cooler doesn't need to be nearly as efficient as it's mounted in the airflow rather than in an automobile engine compartment. Any thoughts? +++ #5328 From: "Derrick Howard" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Oil Coolers The cooling fins on an aircraft oil cooler are further apart than on an automotive one. This is to accomodate the greater volume of air due to higher airspeed (groundspeed ????). +++ #5330 From: "Bill Cox" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Oil Coolers Back in the 60s and 70s a lot of us used Corvair coolers with excellent results. Of course they are now antiques. I have the Positech on my Thorp and it works as well as the Harrison it replaced due to a leak. +++ #5337 From: Jim Ash Subject: Oil Coolers ++ I mess with Corvairs in one of my other lives. Corvair parts are still around if you know the right people. There are 3 basic sizes of oil cooler, with 4, 8 or 12 plates. Get the 12 if you can find one. Forget the 4 - You could do better with a long un-insulated external loop. While we're playing this game, has anybody considered oil filtration? I've got a friend in a club for Corvair-powered motorhomes ( For the curious -http://www.onu.edu/user/FS/kwildman/ultraVan.html ) who's been running a toilet-paper filter and swears by it. And this ain't no pampered show machine - I'd guess he puts 20-30 thousand miles a year on it. It's usually at the Sun 'n Fun inconspicuously parked in a quiet camping area somewhere - Look for the white 22-foot suppository. The old Frantz filters are apparently still around (http://www.wefilterit.com/frantz.htm), and I've been meaning to try one for years but have yet to get off my butt to do it. They're bypass flow (not full flow), but apparently they skim loads more particulates (and water) than a normal filter. Has anybody tried one of these, car airplane or otherwise? +++ #5341 From: bob_babcock@t... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Oil Coolers The oil coolers supplied by after market hipo dealers for ENGINES should be fine. The pressures are compatible with ac engines. Auto applications have the bypass in the filter or the block fitting so this is taken care of upstream of the cooler. Pick up a VW trends or Hot VW magazine for incredible coolers that would be appropriate for most applications. They offer sizes tailored for 500 HP! There are thermostat controls, plumbing, including an fittings and a wealth of talk on aircooling. I inspected coolers at Guyon racing in Calgary and will use something similar myself, the workmanship exceeds some ac coolers I've seen and the price was right. Also racers are fanatics about vibration resistance, and light wieght. I won't own or fly any ac engine without a filter. Many years of professional wrenching on heavy equipment then hipo imports proved to me , no filter no trust in the engine, period. I would avoid the tranny style cooler with a vengance. +++ #5361 From: "Bill Cox" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] IO-520 Continental lists the basic engine weight of the IO-520 as 413 to 431 lbs depending on dash numbers. The injected O 470s are about the same. The carbuerated models are about 20 pounds less. Lycoming lists the parallel valve O 540s at around 375, the angle valve models 420 to 440. I believe Bob is using a carbuerated parallel valve O 540 in Proto II. +++ #5362 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] IO-520 I have participated in a lot of hanger talk with 180 and 185 drivers/mechanics. The recurring theme on the 185 was that the maintenance costs were a lot higher on the 185 due to the I0-520. It has a tendancy of eating cylinders (the 0-470 is also bad on the rear jugs, but not like the 185). Now, part of this may be due to the way the engines are cowled. The general concensus was that the 180 made a great personal plane with it's lower operating and maintenance costs and the 185 was good for comercial work with it's higher gross providing more than enough extra revenu to cover the extra maintenance costs. When we had the 180 rebuilt, we actually had both a 180 and a 185. Both were less than a year old and both were writen off. The agreement with the repair shop was to rebuild one for us in exchange for the other going to the shop. There was a lot of research done but eventually we chose the 180 for the reasons above. Don't get me wrong, the 185 is a real kick in the pants after flying on 180's The 180 requires the pilot to lower the nose right after take-off to build up speed to 80 mph. The 185 just jumps to 80 mph as soon as you leave the water. Climb rate and climb angle are quite a bit better and cruise increases from 115-120 mph to about 130-135 mph. Given the choice, I'd prefer to FLY the 185, but OWN the 180. +++ #5367 From: "Kent White" Subject: Re:Frantz oil filters The toilet paper oil filters made by Frantz came in two basic configurations, as I am told by such cognoscenti: Over-center clamp: auto Allen screw clamp: aircraft. Our nice original auto style model reliably supplies paper in the loo. +++ #5440 From: Joel Mayhall Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Oil Coolers Another source of coolers is an air conditioning condenser. There are many sizes and designs. They are also designed to take 400 - 500 psi pressures. +++ #5451 From: rsmith@a... Subject: Forming Nose Bowls Bill Johnson - have you seen the 3 part article on forming aluminum nose bowls in Sport Aviation? It is in the Aug,Oct,Dec 1999 issues. I came across it while looking for another article. +++ #5456 From: "William & Delinda Johnson" Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Forming Nose Bowls Thanks! I read the articles last night. The Culver restoration is underway so the nose bowl will be my first attempt at metal man type work. FYI, the Culver wood work started by using a skill saw to make a 12 to 1 longeron splice on the fuselge. Kinda strange taking a skill saw to an airplane but it worked great! Sorry, no pictures since this is the bearhawk group - wood discussions are probably not allowed . . . Here is an update on my metal man learning to date. I purchased the welding kit from TM Tech - the Meco torch and TM2000 Lens are fantastic. The gas welding of aluminum is different than steel; however, it is not that hard. Heat and puddle control must be taken to a much higher level of precision but if you can weld steel fairly well, aluminum should not be a big stretch. Actually, I am finding the fluxing process to be the most difficult. I just can't get that moisture to flow out in front of the weld like Kent does on his video . . . The hand forming tools are also high quality. I have the turret anvil and ordered the intro kit as well as the Big powerhouse wheel and little powerhouse air hammer plans. The air hammer will be made first - I intend to make the frame multi purpose. Air hammer and also a hydraulic dimplier for aircraft skins (Bearhawk skins!). Even if you are committed to using a spatula to make some of you parts, the welding torch and lens are worth every penny. They are just superb!!! Of course, pictures will be posted - stay tuned . . . +++ #5492 From: "Michael Geurink" Subject: Re: Turbines again..was Re: Twin Commache > seriously consider the 26 gph fuel burn of an Allison 250 > universally available clean diesel is $1.50/gal., especially > if we could get a mid-time Allison for the price of a piston > overhaul. Seems like somebody mentioned an $8k figure > Whomever it was that was recently talking about a turbine > Bhawk, could you let me know your source, whether there is the > possibility of more available and what you're planning to do > about a PSRU as I understand these are surplus from ch*pper > upgrades? > Now, onto the turbine idea. Being a virtual newbe to gas > turbines, can they practically be run on diesel? Optimally, an adjustment would be made on the fuel control to compensate for the slightly different fuel specific gravity, and there's the possibility that a nozzle swap would be necessary. One anecdote that seems apocryphal but plausible is that during some time of warfare the Russkies in remoter regions had trouble finding sufficient jet fuel; however, they were long many cases of vodka.... I've always thought the smell of burnt kerosene and that warm breeze as the Lear or Sabre or whatever taxied toward the runway were wonderful things, but can you imagine the smell of an Elixir powered Foxbat? Moral: you can make a gas generator turbine run on anything that you can make produce a hot, rapidly expanding gas--100LL, LP... When you dump 89 octane into the Corvair Spyder it makes a hot, rapidly flowing gas that spins a turbine that powers a compressor. Same thing going on in your local JT8D-4 only in this case most of the expansive energy of the gas is dumped out the rear orifice instead of pushing a piston. Most aircraft turboshaft designs have been used at least on a limited basis to turn electricity generators, and I doubt when the fuel can runs out they call the airport to ask the price of Jet A. Mike in the Amazon +++ #5532 From: bcox@a... Subject: Propeller Flanges and Tailwheels Question about engine/prop flanges. The Continental flange as described in Firewall Forward is a six hole, dia. 4.375", hole size 0.375". Is this what is known as the SAE #1 Flange? Does this apply to all horizontally opposed Continentals, including the O/IO 470? The Lycoming flange is described as a six hole, dia. 4.750", hole size 0.375". Is this what is known as the SAE #2 Flange? Does this apply to the O-540? Thanks, Brian Cox, #478 +++ #5556 From: bcox@a... Subject: Engine Info I found a good source of engine info. The FAA publishes the Type Certificate Data Sheets (TCDS) online, and they are a wealth of informaiton. The website is: www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ Click on the Make and Model (TCDS) hot button. They list the sheets for Aircraft, Appliances, Engines and Propellers, which are in pdf format. Check out the Textron Lycoming TCDS 1E12 for the IO-320 (someone was considering salvaging the engines from a twin Comanche). I went through all of the Continental and Lycoming sheets out of curiosity. Just to save others time, some of the engines that might go on a Bearhawk are listed below with the TCDS Lycoming 1E4 = O 540; 1E10 = IO 360; 1E12 = IO 320; E14EA = TIO 540; E16EA = TIO 360; E26EA = TO 360; E274 = O 320; E286 = O 360; E295 = O 540. Continental 3E1 = IO 470; 3E3 = TSIO 470; E1CE = IO 360; E269 = O 470; E273 = O/IO 470 It also answered my earlier question about prop flanges on the big sixes. Lycoming is modified SAE #2, 4.75" circle, six holes, 1/2" dia. Continental is 4.00" circle, six holes, 1/2" each. Since I'm also looking at options for fixed pitch props, I came up with a few in the over 200 hp range for the Lycoming 540 or Continental 470. McCauley P874 = 1A200, 1B200, 1C200, 1D200; P12EA = 1A235, 1B235, 1P235 Sensenich P17EA = 80 BM8 (Lyc 540 only) MT Prop P25NE (40-45 lb constant speed) Hoffman P26NE (2 blade 21 lbs.); P6NE (4 blade 30 lbs.) P5EU (3 blade constant speed 50 lbs.) For what its worth. Brian Cox, #478 +++ #5746 From: Bob Romanko Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Engines Well, I know that he quoted me an "all up" O-360 two years ago for $12,000. I imagine an O-540 wouldn't be much more than that. The Franklin sure is a good value, but we probably shouldn't start that discussion again. Heck, for the horsepower those round engines from Russia sure are nice. Still, you can't be Bob's "19-square" cruise for fuel efficiency, cost, and engine longevity. Yep...that 540 setup in Proto II sure seems to be a good engine choice. Planter Bob +++ #5747 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Engines As a matter of fact, I have been on the waiting list for a Barrow's engine for 9 months, and am scheduled to recieve an O540 in May. He quoted me a price of $15,000, which seemed like a heck of a deal considering I don't have a core and it saves me all the trouble of trying to find a good usuable core. Haven't yet figured out how I am going to get it out here though. Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom CA +++ #5753 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Digest Number 388 > Well, I know that he quoted me an "all up" O-360 two years ago > for $12,000. I imagine an O-540 wouldn't be much more than > that. The Franklin sure is a good value, but we probably > shouldn't start that discussion again. Heck, for the > horsepower those round engines from Russia sure are nice. Geez, I just talked with a guy who sells engines for aircraft and boats down in Florida and he had a bunch of choices, he had more than a dozen 0-470-13's which he said were complete and had logs and was quoting me $4500 for one. He also had parts for a 540 which he was willing to sell for around the same price. Enough parts to make a whole engine. That's more along the price range I'm looking for. Who can afford 12K for an engine??? Thanks, Corky Scott +++ #5763 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Barows Engine vs. Yanked Engine I bought a "Yanked C-85-12F" from an airboat in Florida. The engine was in "running" condition when I bought it for $1000 USD. It also had logs (up to the last use in an airplane) and had only been running on the boat for "a couple of years". The ONLY usable parts on this engine were the intake spider, the conn rods and the case (even that had to be line-bored and had a lot of corrosion). The crank was bent, outside of even M202 limits and had severe corrosion problems. Same was true for the jugs and most of the accessories. THe carb turned out to be a Carter 2BBL automotive job on the end of an intake manifold that PASSED THROUGH THE OIL SUMP!! THe altenator was a rigged system run off of a pulley bolted on behind the prop ala Lycoming. At any rate, the "running" engine was put to rest after it arrived in my shop althoug I did sell the few good parts remaining and recovered most of my cost. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #5785 From: rsmith@a... Subject: Re: Auto Engines > Hi all, I've just joined the group and after doing an archive > search didn't come up with what I was hoping to find: Has > anyone used an auto engine for their plane? Tom Yeoman is quite far along in his project and is using a modified Ford engine, I don't believe he is in the e-mail group(see back issues of Bear Tracks). Bruce Frank does quite a bit of work with auto engine conversions and is on the list. I am going to risk starting a fire-storm of controversy by stating that I believe that a mid or higher time 6 cylinder Lycoming or Continental installation can be had for cheaper than an auto conversion. Check the prices of any of the auto conversions you can buy. Now if you are going to do all of the modifications, rebuild, installation yourself and your time is worth nothing to you that may not be true. I would not want to discourage anyone if this is the route you want to go, thats what experimental aircraft are all about after all. I just don't think you should plan on saving any money and you certainly will increase your project time. Rod Smith #246 Wasilla, AK +++ #5786 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Auto Engines The only one I've heard of is Tom Yeomans (#75) who I believe is on this list. If you want to learn more about auto conversions, get a subscription to Contact! published by Mick Myal ( contact1@f... ) and get his "Alternative Engines" books. Mick is a central clearinghouse for information on auto conversions. I make it a policy of not telling people something can't be done, but I will warn you of pitfalls. Don't fool yourself into thinking that auto conversions are automatically cheaper. I know of no off the shelf developed engine packages in the horsepower range that you'll want, which means you'll have to develop your own. Unless you already have the knowledge and access to shop facilities to do that sort of thing, you may spend just as much as you would on an "aircraft" engine and still have something less reliable or with a shorter TBO. If doing engine work is something you enjoy, then do so. If you just think it will save you money, you need to do some heavy duty research first. Don't forget you don't have to buy a Lycoming or Continental new. There are plenty of alternatives, including buying a mid-time engine pulled out of another airplane, or buying a run-out and overhauling it, if learning how to do that is something you enjoy. We're still waiting to hear from budd, who was working on an OEM deal with Lycoming and possibly Continental to make new engines available for Bearhawkers at reduced prices. Yes, I plan to use an "aircraft" engine in #164. Them's my opinions. The rest of you are welcome to chime in with your own opinions, whether or not you agree with me. Shameless plug: If by doing "an archive search" you mean you searched what was on Yahoo, you missed a big chunk of archives. Yahoo only goes back to 1999, the Bearhawk CD goes all the way back to 1996. Available (cheap!) for $20 from me. More info at http://www.eaa1000.av.org/pix/erbpix/bearhawkcd.htm Russ Erb +++ #5788 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: Auto Engines Here we go again Subject: FW: [Bearhawk] Auto Engines > The only one I've heard of is Tom Yeomans (#75) who I believe > is on this list. > > If you want to learn more about auto conversions, get a >subscription to Contact! published by Mick Myal ( >contact1@f... ) and get his "Alternative Engines" books. Mick >is a central clearinghouse for information on auto conversions. From: mick myal [SMTP:contact1@f...] Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto Engines Russ and all, Thanks much for the plug; we need any support we can get for our 501(c)(3) effort! The ranks of experimenters (not drivers) flying with auto engines is growing. Engines are not the problem; it is what is done to and with them that determines the degree of success. Liquid cooling is an issue not generally recognised by people that trained on air cooled engines and merely looked for bird nests. Then there are the people who were introduced (indoctrinated) to auto engines via Hot Rod magazine (aftermarket cams, manifolds, carburation, split fire ignition, turbos, and the like). In the last 11 years we have published successful builder reports on most every auto engine built, from your everyday VW to the racing Viper V-10. Check us out at: www.nonprofitinet.com/contact/ Regards, Mick Myal, editor +++ #5824 From: "Tony Chisum" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto Engines Check out this site for an ignition for your engine www.sdsefi.com/ Tony #454 From: Fred Spain Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto Engines I'm about 150 hours into #402. Through forming ribs with lightening holes and about to begin flanging those holes, so I've got a long ways to go before engine installation. I bought a brand new GM LX5 3.5L V6 long block off ebay that is going on my Bearhawk. I plan on a Holley #4412 carburetor on a homemade intake manifold, but I'm still looking for good advice on an ignition system. I want something as simple as possible. +++ #5827 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto Engines > Check out this site for an ignition for your engine > www.sdsefi.com/ These guys were at our RAA meeting on Monday. They are now working with a company called Apache engines who are building a 3, 6 and 12 cylinder radial engine (they had thier 100 hp, 3 cylinder, 120 lb wet, engine on display). The engines are being designed as a lightweight stationary generator engine with a 3000 RPM output (built in planetary gear set provides a 2:1 reduction). The engines are predicted to produce 100 hp, 200 hp and 400 hp respectively and weigh about 1 lb per hp. They are also doing a 24 cylinder "twin-pak" down the raod. The 6 cylinder has already been run to destruction after 500 hours (the last couple of few hours after ALL the oil was drained). The design is unique and they do not use a master rod. However, we were not allowed to see the internals as they are going for a patent. Even though these engines are designed for generators, one of the principal investors is interested in kitplanes and wants to make them available to the kitplane market. It is probably a year or more from production, but they sound like they have their ducks in a row. They even had a call from some guy that wanted to by four 6 cylinders for a 1/2 scale B-17! Can you imagine a 200 hp, 6 cylinder that was only 12" long and had a diameter of 22" on the nose of a BH? it's also got a specific fuel consumption of around 0.3 lb/(hp*hr). That would be 7.5 gal/hr at 75%! Sounds exciting! I'll keep you guys informed as I find out info. Oh yeah, one downside is that there is no provision for a prop governor so it will be fixed or electric adjustable only. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #5840 From: "Tim Anderson" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Engine preserving > From: bearhwk272@a... > Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Engine preserving > >> Engine preservative oil called Aeroshell 2F > > The Aeroshell will work fine for long term storage. > A few other tips. > Remove the carb or fuel inject. > Remove the plugs > Drain all the existing oil. > Use a solvent or Acetone to remove oil sludge from the crank > center hole to the prop hub. If you have a hollow crank with a > plug, remove the plug and clean out the cavity. ( oil trapped > here will create acids that do bad things ) > Install a new filter > Overfill the crankcase by several quarts. > Roll the engine around or tip it on the hoist to > slosh the oil all over. > Rotate the crank by hand thru 20 rotations or so.( in the > normal dir of rot) > Drain all the oil. > Refill the case with Clean Preservative Oil. > Repeat the sloshing and rotations > Lycoming's be sure to invert the engine and soak the cam. > Remove the valve rocker covers and spray wash the valve train > with the oil. Replace the covers. > Spray the exhaust valves thru the exhaust port. > Spray into each spark plug hole and rotate the crank to wet > the cylinder walls. > Replace the plugs using antisieze on the threads. > Remove the filter. > Drain the oil. > Plug all openings. > Do not rotate the engine > Wipe down the inside of the crank and the prop flange if > applicable. > Have a tall cool one. > > Kevin > #272 Thanks again for the info. I finally got around to completing the preservation. The engine was installed and operating at the time of removal so we had the luxury of running it breifly as per continental instruction with the preserving oil. I wanted to store the engine (attached to the engine stand) in my house to control the humidity during the summer....the engine mount wouldn't fit through the door...so it's in the garage, where I'm told by non/aviation sources (my girl freind), engines should be stored. I checked the hollow crank/prop oil port..Wow..there was a sludge in there, about 5 inches back of the crank/prop flange where it necks down, that was the consitancy of firm puddy. The O470 was in a C180 and I'm sure the dirt/metal/whatnot in the oil pooled in the back while sitting on it's tail. I had to scrape the stuff out, I bet at least 2 - 3 tablespoons full Hopefully, it will keep for 5 - 6 years until the bearhawk is ready. Tim #398 +++ #5889 From: bearhwk272@a... Subject: Prop Preservation Props Remove / drain all oil, fill and drain with perservative oil. Lube the zerks if equiped. Wipe off bugs, wipe down with a light oil. If a steel hub, spray and wipe exterior with WD-40, get WD-40 into parting line and blade clamp area. Kevin +++ #5952 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Auto-Conversion I posted this to RAH, but thought this might be interesting to the Bearhawk group also. If you have followed the automotive conversion movement here on RAH you are aware that one of the most heard cries was for proof that these engines would go the 2000 hour TBO. Even though the cost of "0" timing an automotive conversion could be done for less than the price of one Lycoming jug, the 2000 hr. tick mark was supposed to be the deciding factor. If you read any of Dave Blanton's early newsletters you may have seen a BD-4 with a toothy shark's grin painted on the cowling. The owner, Ken Mitchell, was noted for his moonlight flights over Utah's Uinta mountains, a declaration of trust in the Ford 3.8L V-6. Night before last Ken Mitchell call me to ask about some details on removing the Blanton PSRU from the engine. It seems that he has hit the 12 year 2000 hour mark and his plane needs paint. While it's down he thought he'd overhaul the engine. Obviously I asked if there was a problem. No! His last compression check showed two cylinders 6 pounds lower than what they were after engine break-in 12 years ago. The other 4 cylinders show no change. The shop that built the engine for him the first time is going to replace the rings, rod and main bearing inserts, and overhaul the carb (a 500 cfm Holley 4412). No other work appears necessary (considering that none of what they *are* doing is likely necessary either). During these twelve Ken has replaced an alternator, because he connected the first one incorrectly, and the OEM starter finally died. He has not replaced the HTD cogbelt in the PSRU and is disassembling that only because the lower sprocket bearing has lost its dust shield!! Ken says he flies as much as he can, usually 1 to 3 hours five days a week. Another incentive to spiff up the engine and paint is that Ken is planing to take some longer cross-country trips. Yes, I know that this is just another "one" auto conversion that just happened to make it to 2000 hours (likely the first). And in the non-believers handbook this is just another apocryphal story probably verging on the "Urban Legend" category. Well, it is sufficient to say that Ken Mitchell has never had to repair the engine and he has never had a stoppage in those 2000 hours of flying time. Ken promises an in-depth article when he gets it flying again. ================ Someone added up the hours a week and said that Ken should have had more hours. Ken also informed me that he has had heart surgery and I gather was with out his medical for a while. Bruce A. Frank +++ #6042 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Digest Number 417 > From: John Thompson > Subject: Auto engines > > After checking the "bearhawk" search results from dogpile, there > seems to be a dearth of information on using auto engines in the > bearhawk. hasn't/isn't anyone tried this yet? > > John I used to be an advocate of auto engine conversions. While I still believe that they can be used as a viable alternative I've re-evaluated my primary reason for wanting to have one and that changed everything. Don't know why everyone else who flies behind auto engines chose to do so but my reason was cost. I couldn't see paying $21K and over for a new engine, and overhauling a used one of the Lycoming 0-360 variety seemed almost as costly with crank prices exceeding $8,000. But the closer I got to needing an engine the more nagging worries I started having. For one thing, it isn't just the engine that you need, it's a LOT of other things the most important of which is the Prop Speed Reduction Unit (PSRU). After years of research I found there were four basic varieties: toothed belt, gear to gear, planetary and chain drive. All of them have their problems and all of them share the same basic difficulty in that they cost around $3,000 and up with some approaching $4,000 and they incur a significant penalty in weight. Don't want to use a PSRU? There have been people bolting props direct to the crankshaft but there are real difficulties with this: The crankshaft is not designed for the kind of loads the prop disc applies to the end of the crankshaft when maneuvering and early VW direct drive cranks broke frequently. Several Subaru cranks have also broken and there are very few direct drive props on larger engines. The other reason you don't see this often is because auto engines develop their power at higher rpms than direct drive aircraft type engines and you can't spin a 72" prop at 4,000 rpm; the tips will exceed the speed of sound which is not only very noisy, drag goes up exponentially to the point where most of the thrust goes away. So the props of direct drive engines must be cut down, which reduces their efficiency. Then there are the problems with using the original EFI and ignition systems which are often not designed for use without the transmission input and shut down without it's signal after a few minutes (Subaru). All this can be somehow gotten around by very clever people, but you really have to know your stuff to do it. Finally, you need to cool it properly and that isn't a simple problem. Where do you put the radiator? Radiators need to have air ducted to them because they offer resistance to air flow and if they are hung out in the free air stream, air simply goes around it rather than through it, not to mention the flat plate drag penalty. The duct needs to be designed specifically to the airplane's performance envelope and duct design has stagnated since the end of WWII. None of this has stopped people from using auto engines, they are flying them anyway and Bruce Frank can list some several hundred examples. But as I get closer to the point where I need the engine to continue the project, I'm getting cold feet. I've been working on the airplane since 1989 in one manner or another and converting to auto engine would require a LOT of engineering to make sure I wasn't tinkering with it for years yet, instead of flying. Then there are the failures. In my research, I've found very few actual engine related failures. In other words, very few crank breakages, piston failures, or rod failures. But there have been some very high profile engine outs that were related parts, like broken oil lines or overheating or ignition failure and so on. The bottom line, for me, was that it was my ass up there and quiet is quiet, it doesn't matter what caused the failure. If I can find an 0-540 to bolt to the nose, a lot of problems are solved like what prop to use, and how to cool it. Aircraft engines often come with standard props but with auto engines, it's a guessing game. How much power is the engine really producing? At what rpm? The reduction ratio is fixed when you build the engine, do you have a high ratio gearing for a slow prop or do you have mild reduction and have a fast turning prop? My head hurts. Corky Scott +++ #6044 From: "Ron Webb" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Digest Number 417 I have undergone the same learning process described by Mr Scott over the last few years, and have come largely to the same conclusions, save one. I agree that a proper and safe auto engine conversion takes a LOT of engineering to get it right, and a lycosaurus has that done already (if only to 1940 standards)...ie you are flying a lot sooner. A third alternative would be a fire wall forward package purchased with most of the engineering done. As an example, see http://northwest-aero.com/ That converted, brand new Corvette engine with all the problems already addressed goes for less than $15K. That's steep for an auto engine, but right in line with a Lyc. It is easier and cheaper to maintain. The weight matches for a Bearhawk, and we get quite a few extra horsepower in the deal. It's also smoother running and quieter, and more fuel efficient. my $.02 Ron Webb +++ #6054 From: John Thompson Subject: Auto engine conversions I've done a lot of reading about auto conversions, and I think that many people are put off because most of the articles have to do with high performance engines. Seems like these guys buy aftermarket parts in effort to boost the HP (and "add" lightness). At the other end of the spectrum there is the 82% P6E Hawk replica. He used a chevy V8 with a cast iron block (he needed the wieght up front anyway) from the factory. He had a different cam installed that gave peak torque at the lower rpms that aircraft normally use. He has direct drive, the stock flywheel, holley carbs, and a couple of other off the shelf aftermarket parts. He says he spent a total of $3500.00 on the engine in mid 90's dollars. Remember, a lot of these basic engine designs have been around for decades. I'm talking about the Ford and Chevy engines. You can order the basic engines without all the EFI, electronic ignition, etc. Yes, a radiator is needed, but it doesn't have to be hanging right in the airflow. My only questions are, can one get a decent HP to wieght ratio for the bearhawk, and can it be made to FIT without too much alteration of the cowl. I think time will tell...some will eventually take the inexpensive route to the engine as well as the plans built bearhawk. +++ #6065 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Digest Number 419 > My only questions are, can one get a decent HP to wieght ratio > for the bearhawk, and can it be made to FIT without too much > alteration of the cowl. I think time will tell...some will > eventually take the inexpensive route to the engine as well as > the plans built bearhawk. That's one of the downsides for the auto conversions, they mostly weigh more than equivalent HP aircraft engines although there are exceptions. That's where Bruce's Ford V-6 comes in nicely. It's a V-6 which means it is a short block, it has two less cylinders than the V-8 which cuts down on weight, it's a cast steel block which is a lightweight design and the timing gear cover and intake manifold are aluminum. The PSRU uses an automatic transmission flex plate to drive the cog wheels rather than a flywheel and thick aluminum plates for the body of the PSRU. It's still a bit on the heavy side for a PSRU but not outlandishly so. Because of the short block length, it can fit close to the firewall and easily manages to stay within proper weight and balance. The devil is in the details with this engine, as with any auto conversion. Some people have had a bit of trouble keeping the heads from leaking, others have not paid proper attention to pushrod length and have overstressed the valve springs causing several to break. This is because the cam is reground which changes the relationship of pushrod length to the rocker arm. Nowadays there is a cam available with proper sized lobes which eliminates this problem, but sizing pushrods properly should be a normal part of any engine overhaul/rebuild regardless the make. Most Ford V-6 owners have opted to use carburation rather than fuel injection because it's more simple. This creates more problems to deal with. A leaning block needs to be installed which practice has shown to be very very sensitive to adjustments. Problems have also been encountered using the two models of carburators with poor fuel distribution. There are NO, repeat NO alternative aftermarket intake manifolds available for this engine that might correct the flow problems. Any solutions are entirely up to the builder. I'm not sure I remember the exact figures but an all up weight for the Ford, producing 190 hp at 4,800 rpm was around 420 lbs or so. They could get heavier when you include things like the radiator, ductwork, piping and antifreeze, or extra alternator if you want two seperate charging systems. Like I said, some people are inveterate tinkerers and just love to fuss around to make this kind of project work. The cooling is a non trivial engineering problem. You can do it three ways; 1. you can do it exactly right, by which I mean you properly sized the radiator, found a radiator that does not produce too much resistance to the air passing through it and designed the ductwork such that it does not produce more drag than an air cooled engine. 2. You can overdo it, producing satisfactory cooling but so much drag that you are slower in all regimes than similar powered air cooled airplanes. 3. You can undersize the radiator or miss engineer the ducting causing significant overheating and a long period of "fixes" to correct for the problem. One more instance and I'll get out. There was a guy who built himself a high wing bush plane that was unconventional looking, it had four wheels mounted in spider like fashion giving it a truly bizarre look. They guy used a Windsor Ford 351 V-8 for power. He had a terrible time with the engine and a worse time trying to cool it. Eventually he cobbled and hacked the intake to the point where it resembled a white shark at the moment of maximum open mouthed bite. All this was pop riveted and rough bent. He finally decided to check flow through the system and using a manometer belatedly discovered that despite the monsterous opening, air was actually flowing ***BACKWORDS*** through the system. He apparently had violated the most basic tenent of aircraft cooling ductwork; it did not exit into a low pressure area, or at least, not low enough. Yes, you can buy a firewall forward system from some vendors but that does not guarrantee success. NSI initially sold a firewall forward system that flat did not work, according to the story I read regarding the difficulties one guy had with it. It was the first such system installed in that aircraft. I can only asume that further engineering was applied to the setup by NSI for their later units. Corky Scott PS, remember, I'm a guy who generally likes the concept of auto conversions. +++ #6070 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Fw: MP-14 Re: M-14P Rod has mentioned all of the important facets of the engine. Here are a few more. The engine wieghts 472 pounds with the Russian 100 amp (!!) generator but can be trimmed down to about 450 pounds with light weight alternator. It uses an airstart system, which works like a charm as long as you put a shut off on the air tank so it doesn't bleed down, which is still no big deal. A small, high pressure bottle, like the old bail out bottles are good for about six starts. Still no big deal because it is one of the easiest propping engines in existence. The engine is barely an inch wider than a Lycoming so it makes a worthwhile substitute. However, it is fairly long, so you can't shorten the nose any. To hang one on a Bearhawk would require some fuselage structural changes and to operate it safely you'd have to observe the original Vne and gross weights. Otherwise, you need to do some other wing mods and worry about flutter, if you fly it faster. The best plan would be to use the horsepower so you are always indicating 160 mph, which, at 10,000 feet would be about 190 mph TAS. 170 is 205 TAS. Speed, however isn't the reason for the Desert Hawk. Bone crushing performance and sex is what it's all about. It's a good looking airplane that with two people and full fuel has the same power to weight ratio as a 180 hp, single place Pitts Special but has the wing loading of a 172 with nothing in it. Takeoff rolls of less than 100 feet would be no problem with a climb rate well over 3,000 fpm. The engine has 1700 pounds of thrust with the Whirlwind prop, so, with the flaps half down, it would probably lift the mains off the ground, if you powered up with the brakes locked. The Murphy has a gross power to weight ratio of 9.7, while the Desert Hawk is 6.9. A two-place S-2C Pitts is 6.5 and a standard 260 BH is 9.6 (compare that to the Murphy 3500). With 260 hp, the BH will give better performance, but won't carry as much load (300-500 pounds less) but will be at least 10-15 mph faster and will get in and out shorter. The shortest prop available for the M-14P is 95" with most being 96-98", so the landing gear needs to be extended along with the appropriate fuselage changes. In the real world, the 260 BH is still an unreal head wrecker that'll get you in and out of places you probably have no business being, so don't get too pumped up by the Vendenyev thing. But it does look cool!!! bd +++ #6107 From: "Matt" Subject: 180 hp Jabiru Has anyone considered an 8 cylinder Jabiru for the Bearhawk? Only 231 LBS Very Small but lots of valves to maintain. Claims 180hp at 2700 RPM Matt http://www.suncoastjabiru.com/new_6000.htm http://www.jabiru.net.au/engines/8cyl.html +++ #6127 From: Tony Dean Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions I am surprised that nobody has looked at any of the higher end Subaru conversions. My impressions of the Subaru conversions is that they can be modesty priced. You have options that can go from a full up conversion package that is comparable to a half time Lycoming or Continental to a do it yourself approach where you go pull the engine yourself and follow the conversion recommendations. I know that most of the Subaru work has been down at the EA-81 level where the 80-100 horsepower is totally unsuitable for Bearhawk applications. However, what about the Subaru engines in the 160-250 HP range? These are available and have similar conversions issues as their little brothers in the 80 hp range. Conversion of the bigger horizontally opposed cylinder engines should follow the smaller ones with a similar conversion process. There seems to be a lot of success in the low end Subaru area and the Bearhawk might be a platform for that 6 cylinder engine out of the Subaru XVT sports car. Any thoughts? +++ #6130 From: "Mark and Tina Lapierre" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions I wasn't aware that subaru made anything in the 250hp range. Is that stock HP or from a modified engine? What does something like that weigh? +++ #6132 From: Tony Dean Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions The flat 6 XV-6 was rated at 235HP. I believe that the later turbo version actually topped 250 but that was an approximation. The 235HP stock rating should be in the Bearhawk range easily. I have read reports of getting a 30 HP boost (dyno measured) on this engine without radical changes (cleanup the intake and exhaust flows and similar changes. Keep in mind that by now you are getting the info on the HP improvements third hand to that part may vary. It still looks like a good option for the Bearhawk. I saw an older one (XT-6) that probably has a little less horsepower on the Dragonfly Owners & Builders site. they wanted $700.00 for the engine: http://www.si-inc.com/subaru/p-classy.htm I was thinking that this older 1988 engine was rated around 190 HP but I could be wrong. td +++ #6135 From: "Derrick Howard" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions I don't think the 235HP rating was @the RPM we need(around 2800RPM I think)for the prop. If it were possible to somehow get 250HP @ 2800RPM sign me up. Those SVX(or whatever they are)shouln't be too hard to find. Derrick Howard #192 +++ #6137 From: Tony Dean Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions The HP rating for one of the Subarus (any size) will require a reduction system. This is usually the case for most auto conversions. That is part of the conversion process and I would seriously consider this for any auto conversion as I do not trust the small bearings of an auto engine to support the brutal torsion loads that a prop puts on the bearings on climb-out. I would expect the Subaru to cost noticibly less than a certified engine of similar output only because the smaller Subarus have significant history for aviation purposes and the planform should allow the conversion process to scale to the larger Subaru products. I would anticipate a weight penalty with the water cooling and reduction drive but not an excessive penalty. The 6 cylinder engine comes from the Subaru sports car (XVT or XT-6 designations I think). There are a few around but a good bet on used Japaneese engines is often to buy one from a broker that resells from the Japan models that do not pass the strict Japaneese emissions. The claim is that these engines are in the 40K mile range. I once called one of these poeple about a Mazda Diesel but they did not have any at that time. Regards td +++ #6138 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions All auto conversions are producing the needed horse power at an rpm higher than just about all props are designed to run. Some very light planes can get by with direct drive because they can tolerate the extra weight and need only the few hp the engine produces at prop rpm. The Ford, Chevy and Soob all are going to need a PSRU to develop the hp most everyone wants for the Bearhawk. The Soob SVX 3.3L opposed water cooled 6 cylinder is one of the great choices for Bearhawk type aircraft. +++ #6139 From: "Derrick Howard" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions I thought some of the smaller Subarus were direct drive units, maybe I'm wrong. But even with a gear-drive PSRU won't you lose 50-100HP? Derrick +++ #6144 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions Personal observations on auto conversions (I just flew four hours of dual in 108 degree temps so I apologize if I'm a little edgy): -We have to eventually make car engines work, or avition is going to die of old age. -The average homebuilder should't think about doing a conversion himself. Ironing out all the wrinkles of an auto conversion is a project bigger than building the airplane. -A few auto conversions have been around long enough, the skeptics (me included) are close to being convinced. Those are the Blanton/Javelin V- 6 and the Mazda the RV guys are using. If a conversion hasn't got 1000 hours OF FLIGHT TIME on it without being disassembled, it doesn't show me a thing. -too many auto conversion people think they know more than Ford or Chevy so they modify the engine that milllions was spent designing and upset the harmony which was designed into it. -The average used, mid time 0-540 runs about $10,000, is a known factor, is bullet proof, and you just take it out of the box and hang it. It will get you in the air twice as fast as doing an auto conversion and you won't worry about it. -it is false economy to think you're going to save enough by using an auto conversion to offset the time spent. -all that being said, it's a perfect place for the guy who loves to tinker and work on stuff. bd +++ #6145 From: "Derrick Howard" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions I just read that a Planetary Gear PSRU will eat about 5% of the rated HP while a belt driven PSRU will consume about 10%. I think it was one of the PSRU companies that build 'em for Mazdas that I read it. A 3 rotor Mazda 20B engine can easily produce 250HP stock, but your still in the 6-10K dollar range even if you build it you yourself. Engine 3000?? PSRU 3000 Radiator(s) Alternation Starter Oil cooler Intake Exhaust Fuel Injection? Etc. Maybe the naysayers are right, let's start saving for the O-540 now :) Derrick Howard #192 P.S. Maybe "The Bob" will start financing !!!!! Ha-Ha. +++ #6147 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: [Bearhawk] PSRU Losses (was:Auto engine conversions) Loss through a cogbelt, gear or Hi-VO chain drive PSRU ranges from 1% to a typical maximum of 3%. Do your own calculations. One horsepower equals 746 watts. Convert 50-100 hp to wattage(we all have a feel for the heat produced by a 500 watt Halogen work lamp). If you dissipate that much wattage through the PSRU it would vaporize. +++ #6158 From: Jimmy Mathis Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions I fly ultra lites and all of our engines require gear boxes or belt reductions and the most hp loss is about 15% and that is on belt drives. Jimmy +++ #6159 From: "Tony Chisum" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions Check out www.crossflow.com They have the 3.3L Subaru conversions up to 350hp. They one designed for the comp monster that is 250.hp that should be just the ticket for the Bearhawk. The firewall forward package is $20,000.00 Tony #454 +++ #6160 From: "Ron Webb" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions I still would like to see one of these $15K all aluminum GM LS-1 V8's ( http://northwest-aero.com/catalog/catpage2.html ) in a Bearhawk. At 495 Lb and 350 HP, I doubt the Soob will beat it on either of those numbers, and this thing is the descendant of the old 231 Buick that has been around for 30 years...lots of experience and history! +++ #6169 From: Ron Morrison Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions One thing to remember about auto conversions is that the a/c may not be insurable with an auto engine, at least for the first 100 hours. While at OSH 1999 I enjoyed going around to the several Subaru conversion booths and observing their reactions after telling them that Avemco would not insure an a/c with a Subaru engine. That info was straight from the Avemco guy in his booth. Needless to say, the Soob guys beat a path to the Avemco booth in short order. The situation may well have changed since then, so better check with your insurance agent before writing off the Soob or any other auto engine. Seems to me that an a/c with a commercial FWF package should be insurable if certain requrements are met to please the insurance folks. Cost? The commercial FWF packages seem to run in the range of a new/rebuilt a/c engine. Personally, I have a problem with the high h.p. Subarus and (to me) conflicting concepts of one horsepower per cubic inch, reliability, and long engine life. I'm really intrigued with the Mazada rotary, myself. Ron, 473 +++ #6170 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Resale Value? I am somewhat surprised at homebuilders talking about resale value. My advise for years to those building the V-6 STOL was to build it the way they wanted it because they would likely be stuck with it until it wore out. Unless one builds a show winner of exceptional beauty, style and workmanship most homebuilts seldom recoup the cost of materials. The Bearhawk is a workhorse utility vehicle, OK, maybe a sport utility vehicle. I would guess most who are building it are doing so because it can take them to back-country strips; to places off the beaten path with supplies and fishing gear, places of adventure where the night life is a really good view of the Aurora Borealis. As for insurance, last I checked most all of the companies would provide liability. NONE would provide hull insurance on a plans built until you reached the 100 hour mark. Even then, look at what your are flying; a tail wheel plane probably intended to be used on grass strips or on that wide sandbar where the fishing is really good on the "Kenikoochook" river. If you tell the truth do you think they will jump at replacement hull coverage (at a price you could afford...after all, you're building rather than buying a new Maule or C182)? If the Lycoming or Continental is going to make the difference if you ever sell it then that is the time to pickup a run out 0-540 to include with the "project". I'd build the Bearhawk for satisfaction and pride expecting to sell it for salvage when I've rung every ounce of usage out of it at a time that I can no longer pass the medical. If the insurance companies shape your choice of aircraft then you may be up the creek with a hole in one float already. Bruce A. Frank +++ #6185 From: "W. Shalm" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Jabiru 180 hp Someone posted a message recently about this new Jabiru 6000 undergoing testing in Aussie land. They rate at 180 or 200 hp. Check them out at http://www.jabiru.net.au/ Warren +++ #6365 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: New wanna-be builder There are two things I'd like to comment on here. First is the cost of an engine. One of the slickest ways to get yourself a good, half-time engine is to keep an eye out for salvage aircraft. When an airplane is writen off, the insurance company employs the use of an adjuster to dispose of the wreckage. In some cases, the plane will be sitting in a nice, comfy hangar ready to be loaded on a trailer. Other times it could be sitting hundreds of miles from the nearest road. The wreckage is sold to the highest bidder. Of course, prior to buying the plane, you have to carefully inspect the engine to see if it's been damaged, but if you go for a plane that's been flipped in a windstorm or damaged by hail, this shouldn't be a concern. An example of how well this can work is the 1992 PA-28 we bought. It was being ferried from the factory to the costumer in France and ended up running into icing condition outside of St. John's. He continued the night approach with the static port frozen over until he hit the trees some 4 miles short of the field. Despite extensive damage, the pilot walked away with a sprained ankle. We did some investigating and found that the insurance company was in France. A quick phonecall determined that the adjuster just wanted to get rid of the plane as quick as possible without the hassle of sending someone to Newfoundland. We offered him $2500 CAD and walked away with a PA-28 with only 22 hours TTSN. The engine was mostly OK except 3 parts: the crankshaft (flange bent 30 degrees) and the two case halves (cracked when the crank bent. Still, we sold the remainder of the engine for $3500 to an RV-6 builder who already had a run-out 0-320 with a good crank and case. Considering that the rest of the engine was nearly new, he got a good deal. We took the new KX-155 and KT-76A and installed them in the 180 using the profit from the engine to cover the cost of installation. Most of the other instruments, brakes, wheels, nuts, bolts, switches, breakers, cables, etc were put aside for the Christavia. This saved me thousands. This is actually the 6th airplane we've salvaged. The others include the 180 that we fly (unfortuantely, it counts twice!), a 185 that was traded for the repairs done to the 180, a Citabria and a Hawker Hurricane. Anyway, this is a good way to get an engine and possibly a prop for very little money. < workshop considerations snipped.> Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #6366 From: Bob Romanko Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Re: New wanna-be builder As I've posted earlier, Bob Barrows (last I checked) was charging only $12,000 USD for a freshly overhauled O-320. I imagine an O-540 would be no more than another $5,000, but I'm only guessing. I see no reason why you couldn't fit an aircraft engine on a Bearhawk "all up" for under $17,000 if you shopped carefully for your accessories. Heck, you could come close to that for a new 220 HP Franklin, which is a pretty decent engine. Of course, my heritage has nothing to do with my bias. I'm Ukrainian, but another 75 miles or so I'd be Polish. By the way, I can't agree more regarding salvage aircraft. Usually the accessories and radios don't get too trashed, and you can easily make up for what you pay the insurance company if you do your homework. A good friend of mine who's on this list, Jim Harkness, flew down to Florida during this past big hurricane (that's another story, RIGHT Jim?!?) and scored a very sweet deal on a Musketeer. Every time I see him he's telling me more news about the killing he's making on that aircraft. He's been selling it off for over a year now, and probably made three times his money already. Yup...a salvage is a good way to go if you do careful research and your timing's right. Planter "Pass Me Another Golabki" Bob +++ #6471 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: A real engine alternative/improvement All of you guys who like to spend your time talking/thinking/dreaming about what engine you're going to put in your Bearhawk need to go to http://www.liquidcooledairpower.com and check out the latest. Alternatively, pick up your Feb 2001 Sport Aviation and turn to page 114. These guys came to speak at our EAA chapter meeting. In short, they have developed replacement cylinders for Lycoming parallel valve O-360 and O-540 engines that are liquid cooled. To get a liquid cooled engine you take off the old cylinders, put on the new liquid cooled cylinders, add a gear driven coolant pump and some hoses (and of course a radiator). Everything in the bottom end of the engine stays the same. This is not another one of those outfits that had an idea, built a website, and may produce something someday. They have been in development for 7 years, have gobs of dyno testing, and are about to start flight testing. Their web site does a great job of answering all of the obvious questions. This has some real possibility, and enough for me to follow future developments. Current cost to convert an O-360 is $11,995 and an O-540 is $15,995. One plan would be to find a run-out IO/O-540, overhaul the bottom end, then get this conversion done. Obviously you wouldn't want to pay for a new engine just to swap out the whole top end. Russ Erb +++ #6479 From: Jim Ash Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] A real engine alternative/improvement >All of you guys who like to spend your time >talking/thinking/dreaming about what engine you're going to put >in your Bearhawk need to go to Dumb question, but what do I get for my money? Are we presuming cooler cylinder temps which will lead to more torque output? Jim Ash #387 +++ #6481 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] A real engine alternative/improvement How about cooler cylinder temps preventing detonation. Or the ability to maintain full peak hp output with no time restriction. Then there can also be closer tolerance reducing oil consumption and blow-by. Another savings might the reduction of oil "coking" on the exhaust valve and stem. Also no shock cooling when you throttle back to descend. Lower fuel consumption because less fuel is needed to help cool the engine. I could probably think of more. Bruce A. Frank +++ #6483 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] A real engine alternative/improvement I suggest you go to the web site in the original message and read through it. They answer all of the questions you probably have. Therefore, I'm not taking the time to retype the answers. I think you'll like it. It's got my interest, and if you knew me well you'd know that's saying a lot. I bet budd will even be interested. Russ Erb +++ #6484 From: rsmith@a... Subject: Re: A real engine alternative/improvement I read through the entire website and did find it intrigueing. After the initial shock of the price the discouraging factor is the weight. They quoted 38 pound net gain for an O-360. I would guess that would be at least 50 pounds for an O-540 and all of it firewall forward unless you moved the radiator elsewhere and that doesn't weigh much. Not going to rule it out at this point though. Rod Smith #246 +++ #6485 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Re: A real engine alternative/improvement The guy did talk to us about the weight gain. Partially offsetting this is that because of the liquid cooling, the engine can run at a higher compression ratio and leaned for best power at any power setting, such that the power output is higher than what is available in the air cooled version. I think the power/weight stays about the same. The weight gain on a O-540 would not be that high. In fact, it should be very close to the same 38 pounds. The liquid cooled cylinders are actually 1/2 pound lighter than the air cooled, and the rest of the system is basically the same. Converting to a lightweight starter will shed 12 pounds. Boy, I hope these guys get to market before the capital runs out. That seems to be the biggest challenge with a lot of these developments. By the way, Lycoming has not expressed much interest in what these guys are doing. If they are successful at creating as good of a product as they claim, I wouldn't be surprised if Lycoming tried to buy them out. Russ Erb +++ #6486 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: liquid cooling > I bet budd will even be interested. Liquid cooling is always king, except when it isn't: we recently had an Extra 400 (the 6 place cabin job) lose it's engine and belly in on a service road next to I-17. The engine was the liquid cooled Continental 550. It blew a rod and part of the crank right through the top of the case, cowling, etc. It's probably wasn't that it was liquid cooled. I think it's problem was that it was a new Continental. bd +++ #6487 From: zipppydoggg@y... Subject: Re: A real engine alternative/improvement I follow a couple of news groups concerning auto engines in airplanes. Some have some good ideas. One idea that has stuck with me is that "liquid cooling an airplane makes as much sense as air cooling a submarine". One leak and we all walk home. I think if a design were willing to pay the price for liquid cooling, the advantages would have to be more than the ability of run higher compression ratio's, or reduceing the oil comsumption. I'm attracted to the Mazda rotary engine, except that it is water/oil cooled. My $.02 Rob Gaddy +++ #6488 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: A real engine alternative/improvement One could say the same thing about lubricating with oil or fueling with gasoline. Almost all operating parameters of air cooled engines are compromises. Weight may be the ONLY advantage. And if I thought that limitation my deciding factor, I'd go on a personal diet. +++ #6489 From: snort imer Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Re: A real engine alternative/improvement I thought I remember reading on one of your posts or on your page something about considering a Franklin. I don't know much about them, but will do an internet search or ask someone else who might know. What are your thoughts now? Just curious. I plan on buying your CD and buying the plans from Bob Barrows when I get back from vacation in August. At the planning stage of the planning stage so far. On another note, I'm still thinking about a BRS. I took a look at the Cirrus, and supposedly they've got something to support 2,900 lbs. gross weight. Obviously, the best safety measure is good piloting skills (hope to try gliders in the next month!), but for those freak occurences, I just feel safer knowing there's a rip cord or something similar as a last ditch effort to save my skin and passengers' as well. Happy flying!(BTW very envious of your F-16 job!!!) John Walsh +++ #6498 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Digest Number 446 I agree with Bruce here. He and I have been following auto engine conversions since the 80's and Bruce edits a newletter devoted to the Ford V-6 for airplanes. He has a really strong body of knowledge about what works and what doesn't. Coolant leaks aren't a big problem with auto engine conversions. The coolant system doesn't need to develop any more pressure than what normally occurs in the car, although some people like to run higher pressure systems. If coolant were a problem there wouldn't be some 1000 + people flying around in liquid cooled auto engine conversions. The biggest problem I've encountered is the cost, complexity and weight of the PSRU, plus the complexity of the cooling system. To do it properly, the coolant system really needs to be designed right. This means (to me) a system that incorporates a good flowing intake and plenum, a properly sized radiator designed for high speed airflow and the exit that flows the air parallel to the airstream. This is not easy to do without designing the entire airplane from scratch. It isn't necessary to do things this way, you can just hang a humongous radiator horizontally underneath the engine and all flow niceties be damned. This is the worst possible case scenario for coolant drag and efficiency because the air has to come in, blow by the very draggy engine block, pickup heat from the headers and engine, turn 90 degrees and squeeze through the radiator then turn 90 degrees and exit into the slipstream. It's almost like writing a treatsie on how not to do it. Yet it works. It's not for me, I've given up on the idea of spending another portion of my life tinkering with an auto engine but I still buy the concept for those who don't mind the work. Corky Scott +++ #6544 From: charles.k.scott@d... Date: Fri Jun 15, 2001 6:23 am Subject: Re: Digest Number 450 > BTW, Corky, Stan will likely sell the engine/PSRU complete (no > idea of price yet). If the price is right you may actually > have another alternative for your Christavia. Thanks for your kind thoughts and for looking out for me Bruce. As I mentioned to you yesterday and will share with the group, I may have found a useful engine but I still have some questions. I've gotten a lead on a Continental IO-470 that is currently on a Cessna 310. It's a high time engine and the owner, who is an A&P is planning to replace it with a spare engine he removed from another twin that he is in the process of rebuilding (the engine, not the airplane). The second engine of his twin is a low time engine. He said there is nothing wrong with the engine, it's just approaching TBO (1500 hours). The owner wants a VERY reasonable price for it. So far so good, now the questions. This is a high power engine, it's rated at 260 hp. This is a LOT more than I need although I don't need to spin it to it's max rpm which would derate the engine, of course. I also would like to know the weight of the engine. A friend of mine, who got the other engine from the twin and had it shipped to his house (remember there were two twins involved, one the guy was working on and replaced both engines keeping one and selling the other to my acquaintence). The thing weighed 701 lbs with the crate, this included everything except the prop and engine mount, possibly with oil as well. The crate did seem a bit robust, with 4X4's used as skids, but still, that seems like a lot of weight. I can't find any information on 0-470's right now but my recollection is most of them weighed around 400 lbs, with some going over that and some weighing less. I will of course be calling the guy back, during my initial conversation with him he did not have the engine weight off the top of his head. So I'm wondering if the crate could possibly be 300 lbs, I don't think so. The A&P thought the crate might weigh 150 lbs or so. That still puts the engine at 550 lbs, which seems high, but it has that counter weighted crankshaft so I really don't know what's reasonable. The engine would be complete, with everything needed to run and would include the logs. They work just fine in 180's and 182's and 185's so I'm not worried about whether it would work in the airframe or not, and the price is very VERY good. I've even extended the fuselage (when I laid it out) to compensate for a heavier than normal engine (I was planning at one point to use the Ford V-6), so things look pretty good at this point. But, I'm using Tripacer landing gear which means I have to be careful about prop clearance. From what I've been able to gather, the prop diameter would be around 80", possibly as much as 85". So I now need to right the fuselage (it's upside down right now as I try to fabricate the belly stringers which have to fit around the inboard of each main gear arm that attaches to the bungy cord holders), and jig it up to it's actual resting height above ground and measure to see how, or if, the engine will sit in a reasonable place and give me adaquate prop clearance. No need to rush this, the engine won't be available until Fall. Any thoughts here, other than the usual tricycle gear bashing that is? Thanks, Corky Scott +++ #6546 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: Digest Number 450 > As I mentioned to you yesterday and will share with the group, > I may have found a useful engine but I still have some > questions. I had found a website that lists the type certificates for aircraft and systems. That included engine and propeller type certificates. I think I made a post about these about 2 months back. Anyway, I am flying a 310K with IO-470V engines, and printed out Type Certificate 3E1. Here's what it says about weights: "The IO-470V engine has a 471 cubic inch displacement achieved by using a cylinder design with a 5.00 inch diameter bore and a 4.00 inch stroke. The dry weight of the engine is 406.09 lbs. without accessories. The average weight of the engine with installed accessories is approximately 450 lbs." I'm very happy with the way they perform in my plane. I have 100 hours, and the engines are high time (1300+ SMOH). I'll know a bit more in July, as I go in for my first annual on June 25th. My first preference for BH #478 will be an IO-470, but will also consider 0-540 or possibly Franklin 220. Brian Cox, #478 +++ #6784 Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 22:19:38 -0400 From: Wilbur GrC Graff wgraff@ Subject: Re: Another Bearhawk Flying > Is this your first airplane and what can you tell us about how > you got there so fast? Lots of questions and not mush time. I'll list a few of the specs this time and try to cover more next time. I used a C/182 O-470-R engine and mount (not from my 182, it was sold and now in AK). The mount was cut down to fit and reinforced at the main tube clusters. The engine is under 500 lbs. Wt of ship 1392 with battery 15 in. aft of baggage bulkhead. No electric hookup or starter yet. Exshaust system made by Aircraft Exhaust Jumping Branch WV. Here's one photo Wil +++ #6817 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:04:33 -0700 From: "Bruce A. Frank" bafrank@ Subject: Another Automotive Engine Conversion Milestone A while back I posted here about Ken Mitchell's BD4 with the Ford 3.8L V-6 engine reaching the 2000 mark. A number of people who have considered auto-conversions have expressed concern about the additional complexity of adding a PSRU to the power plant equation. Most of the manufacturers of cogbelt type PSRU recommend replacement of the cogbelt at 500 to 1000 hours. Ken's PSRU was an original Blanton manufacture with the 4.5 inch wide Gates HTD belt. If you look at the spec sheets on these belts they are rated for more HP than generated by a Ford or Chevy V-6. They are also rated for doing such things as running log chippers for 8000 hours, a much more severe service than turning a prop. Ken informed me that the original belt ran the entire 2000 hours and still looks "good as new". This is not a unique story, I have talked to several who are at 1200 and 1500 hours on the belt with no obvious indication of wear. Some have criticized Blanton's QC on his PSRUs and I have been among them. It does look like that the sprockets were cut correctly and when installed and adjusted properly this PSRU will last "forever". So those with concern over care of the PSRU, it appears there is no extraordinary care or maintenance required. One less stumbling block to agonize over. Bruce A. Frank +++ #6977 Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 16:35:03 -0700 From: "Bruce A. Frank" bafrank@ Subject: Engine mount for The Ford V-6 I have just been looking at some of the posted pictures on the Bearhawk achieve. The picture: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bearhawk/files/V-6%20mount.gif shows a good view of the left side of the mount. Though this mount may last just fine if one builds one from scratch there are a few considerations that need to be made. The very end of the rail on which the lugs are placed, the end lug carries the weight of its share of the engine and the addition of the cantilevered weight of the PSRU. The load is concentrated right at the end of the gusset to the diagonal down tube that attaches to the top of the firewall. There is a tendency for a crack to develop between the end of the gusset on the diagonal tube and the end lug. Look closely at the lower diagonal, the one that comes from the lower firewall mount point and attaches to the rail about 3 inches short of the upper diagonal tube's gussets. To eliminate the stress on the outboard lug that lower diagonal should go all the way to the end of the rail. I have a roughly drawn diagram. If anyone wants to see the change, email me and I'll send it. I have no web sit on which to post it. -- Bruce A. Frank +++ #7022 ate: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 20:48:53 -0500 From: "Tex and Pat Goerger" texgrgr@ Subject: engine As Airventure 2001 drifts into the mists of my memory one of the displays remains prominent. The Jabiru 8 cylinder , 231 lb., 180 HP engine. It was a neat small light package that may be feasible in the Bearhawk. Does anyone have any knowledge of the reliability and performance of the 4 cylinder model that has been out for a while. Tex #180 +++ #7026 Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 01:33:23 -0400 From: Mike mike2799@ Subject: Re: engine > As Airventure 2001 drifts into the mists of my memory one of > the displays remains prominent. The Jabiru 8 cylinder , 231 > lb., 180 HP engine. Bob and I worked out the numbers - It would fit in the Bearhawk cowling - you would need to have the battery on the firewall to get enough weight up front. Don't be the first one in line for it! I hope it works out Homebuilt/GA needs another good engine option. It looked really good and I bet it SOUNDS good too! Later - Mike +++ #7029 Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 14:49:10 -0000 From: "Chris Boultinghouse" sonexbuilder@ Subject: Re: engine The Jabiru engines (after some initial teething problems on the early 4-cyl models) have been reliable performers. There are lots of the 4- cyl models with many hundreds of hours on them (both here in the US and Australia), and their 6-cyl big brothers are racking up the hours as well. There are six Sonex aircraft flying with the 4-cyl, and four flying with the 3300 6-cyl, one with over 100 hours already with zero problems. If the 8-cyl proves to be as good, they'll sell boatloads of them to the Van's crowd! To my knowledge, the only current area of complaint from some users has been the Bing carbs. Most of the Sonex guys have switched them out for other options (Ellison or the Sonex Aero-Carb). Chris Boultinghouse +++ #7031 Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:13:51 -0700 From: Russ and Penny Erb erbman@ Subject: RE: Re: engine Hi all -- Russ Erb asked me to submit a considered reply to you all - To put you in the picture I am currently visiting USA and am in the process of returning from Oshkosh. I have been following the development of the Jabiru series of engines for a number of years from the 1600 and 2200 4 cylinder models and the 3300 6 cyl. engine. In the early stages - about 3 or so years ago - there were a few teething troubles with the early 4's but the people at Jabiru got on top of then very quickly and the 4's are very reliable. I am building a Zodiac 601HDS and have a Jabiru 3300 sitting at home waiting for installation. Before I put my money on the line I visited the Jabiru factory at Bundaberg, Queensland and sat down with Rodney Stiff (one of the joint managing directors of the company) and spent an hour or so going through all the problems that I had heard of in their early development and he explained their 'fix' for all of them. About the only warning I was given was to keep a close watch on the CHT else the life of the exhaust valves may be limited. I was convinced and purchased a 6 cyl. model. The 8 cyl. has only just been completed and is due for its first aircraft installation (in a 2 seat Spitfire kitplane in Australia) within weeks. They had one on display at their stand at Oshkosh and it looks every bit as good as their other engines and I cannot see any reason why it should not be as successful. Graham Byass Western Australia +++ #7035 Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:29:46 -0700 From: Russ and Penny Erb erbman@ Subject: RE: Re: engine > What is the asking price for the different engines, FWF? Graham pulled these URLs off of another e-mail list that he is on. What a concept--sitting in California (or anywhere else in the world) and reading your e-mail on a server in Australia. It still boggles my mind. http://www.usjabiru.com/engines.html Also more details here: http://www.jabiru.net.au/engines/8cyl.html The second URL has pictures of the installation in the Spitfire that Graham talked about. Russ Erb +++ #7036 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 06:24:00 -0700 From: Budd Davisson buddairbum@ Subject: Re: Re: engine On their website, http://www.usjabiru.com/engines.html they say the 8 cylinder Jabiru (180 hp) is $13,800. plus $1990 for the stuff to mount it, which includes the prop. At that price you can pick up an excellent 0-540 or 0-470 with less than 500 hours on it. At OSH Superior announced their 180 0-360 clone at $16,000. I don't know if this includes accessories or not, but I'm assuming it does. As much as I want to see alternative engines show up, it still looks as if the complete units, when store bought, rather than built from scratch, don't offer much $$$ margin over what's already available in aircraft engines and, they still have a large unknown quanlity to them. bd +++ #7037 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 14:12:11 -0000 From: "Chris Boultinghouse" sonexbuilder@ Subject: Re: engine I used to think along the same lines, Budd. And most of my local EAA chapter (187, Austin TX) wondered why I was building a Sonex when "...you can build an RV-6 for the same money". But that isn't quite true! Not if you compare apples to apples, anyway. I decided at the beginning of my project that not a single "pre-owned" item was going in it. It's going to be a NEW airplane, darnit and that goes for the engine as well. I can't imagine spending all this time and money building a new airplane and then sticking someone's leftovers on the nose. Yeah, I know. A lot of people do it; I'm just not going to be one of them. (Is that snobby? I dont' mean it to be.) So for someone that wants "new", I don't think you'll find 180hp for the same money as the Jabiru 6000. Even Van's OEM pricing on a 180hp Lyc is near $20,000, less the FWF stuff. I do agree about the "unknown quality" concern, but one has to start somewhere! Just think: 60-odd years ago the Lycoming was an "unknown" too. :^) -Chris +++ #7038 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 08:05:31 -0700 From: Budd Davisson buddairbum@ Subject: Re: Re: engine A). Lycomings were an unknown 60 years ago at a time when there was no viable alternative (except Continentals that had the same unknown quantity). B). There's a tendency to equate "new" with "reliable." In aviation, reliability is everything. Everything! That's why I don't use new engines or even factory remans. I much prefer engines from top end overhaulers. If the urge to do something different, which is the basis upon which homebuilt aviation is built, is strong, which it obviously is in your case, by almeans go for it. Just know that the trade offs may be (repeat, May be) lower safety. Who pays for that lower safety in the event something bad happens? Your family, your friends, your kids. Everyone makes their own judgement calls here, but I always err towards the conservative side. Of course, if people such as yourself, didn't do different stuff, we'd never get ahead. At some point we have to get the various automotive engines into the main stream because we can't keep running 60 year old technology. However, in my mind, the curves haven't crossed yet. But, we're getting closer. bd +++ #7039 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 15:31:53 -0000 From: "Chris Boultinghouse" sonexbuilder@ Subject: Re: engine All good points, Budd! And (believe it or not) I too am cautious when it comes to flying. I've looked at alternative/conversion engines for my Sonex (like the VW) and dismissed them because that's just a bit too close to the edge when it comes to reputed reliability. The Jabiru has been around for a number of years now, and has thousands of hours of flight time (well, the smaller ones do.) IMHO, it has shown itself to be reliable enough to put on the kind of airplane I'm building, and do the kind of flying I'll be doing (slow stall speed, day-VFR). I'm sure my feelings would be different if I were building a fast-glass IFR-equipped airplane, or something that had to haul my sorry butt out of a box canyon with a moose in the back. :^) I would also be less willing to accept this risk if the Jabiru used radical new technology, but it doesn't. It's basically the same "old technology" as the Lycoming, but in a CNC-machined lightweight package. *shrug* Anyway, we could "what if" ourselves until we're so scared of the world that we stay in bed all day. I'm not a huge risk-taker, but I'm not afraid of my shadow either. I like to have fun in life, which is why Sunday at 4pm I'll be taking the second lesson of a basic aerobatic course (in a 152 Aerobat). Yee Haaa, it's fun!!! :^) -Chris +++ #7043 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:11:00 -0700 From: Budd Davisson buddairbum@ Subject: Re: Re: engine > Budd... I'm intrigued by the logic behind this. The failure rate in new engines in the first 100 hours is substantially higher than in the same period fo time in overhauled engines. The supposed cause is because the parts in an overhauled engine have proven metalurgy where the new ones don't. I always use Mattituck engines (I'm on my fourth) and when I was back east I spent a lot of time out at their facilities. Every one of the guys building engines who also owned airplanes all swore they'd never use a new cam, for instance. They always opted for first run cores because they've seen so many new ones break, even in engines they've overhauled. I've only had three engine failures and two of them were on brand new engines. One at 11 hours in a new S-2B Pitts. I suppose most of my mistrust of remanned or new engines stems from my mis-trust of the engine factories and the way their quality control wanders all over the place. I used new factory jugs/pistons, etc on my last overhaul and had to pull all of the jugs at 93 hours because of the wrist pin AD where the factory "thought" they had sent out some bogus wrist pins. A major bummer. I think the higher end overhaul facilities, some of which (Mattituck and Penn-yan that I know of) are now designated by the factories to create "zero time" or remanned engines, do a better job than the factories. Bear in mind, this is nothing more than my opinion. Also bear in mind, I sit on a parachute most of the time and that's because of my basic distrust of things mechanical. bd +++ #7515 Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 21:53:00 -0700 From: "Bruce A. Frank" bafrank@ Subject: "NOT" Off Topic Comm Check > OK, you want juicy off topic subject, how about the new Chevy > truck engine reported in latest issue of Contact! ?? I think this is very on topic. Discussion of alternative engines is part of the building process. Heck, 3 years ago it was heresy to suggest an engine the size of the 0-540. Northwest Aero if given a sample to use for fit-up can build a cogbelt PSRU for anything...and has done so for a wide variety of engines. Bruce A. Frank +++ #7657 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 01:27:06 -0400 (EDT) From: jerryl160@ Subject: Re: Some good news for a change Good source forTechnical manuals for the Continental 0-470 GPU engine is Aero-Tec Data,web site:www.aerotechdata.com I just brough there overhaul and parts manual,Packette PE-150-2/-6 Ovhl. and Pts. for $85+ S/H. It's going to come in handy so i can figure whats what and what to keep what to throw away. I am going to use a 4-cyl. Continental Gpu engine in Bearhawk-160. I am also looking for a source for parts. Jerry-160 +++ #7666 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:33:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Jimmy Mathis tallow_98@ Subject: Re: Digest Number 552 > The GPU type Continental engine is a single plug per cylinder > type, I think. They also have the carburator situated above > the engine so if you want to convert it to something with two > plugs per cylinder and have the type of clearance above it > that is necessary it looks pretty expensive. You'd also need > to make sure the accessory drive is set up to drive another > mag., then you'd need the mag. How about an electronic ignition. This engine came out of the GPU and hasn't seen any airboats. Jimmy 501 +++ #7685 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 21:17:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Jimmy Mathis tallow_98@ Subject: Re: GPU parts contact Rodney at 863 633 6688 or email bada0470@aol.com Rodney has aircraft and gpu parts. He has everything I need to convert to dual ignition and aircraft carbureation. Apparently the air boat crowd likes to run them like aircraft engines. Please mention my name, Rodney gives discounts for name mention. Jimmy 501 +++ $Id: 2.7-FirewallFwd,v 1.13 2001/09/26 04:25:36 bentonh Exp $