>>> 2mar02 #7686-9153 +++ #7846 From: atpcoinc@n... Subject: turbo-prop engine Hello, have you heard about the new turbo-prop engine for planes and possibly other applications? We have started a Yahoo group for our engine, the ATP Affordable Turbine Power engine. The group is located at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATP1 and our website is http://atpcoinc.com Hope to see/hear from you soon. +++ #7964 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Engines, again I paid a visit to Russ Gerrish, one of our chapter members last weekend (mainly to borrow his trailer to get my bird out of storage and back to it's new home in my new garage). Russ is a rotorhead and has built a Rotorway Exec. In fact, he's actually built it twice. It's not that he's had to rebuild it, but he has applied most of the new parts that Rotorway has come out with over the years. The one complaint he's always had was a lack of power in the piston engine that Rotorway claims is 150 hp. Unconfirmed reports have it producing no more than about 120 hp. Throwing in Calgary's 4000' elevation has made for some interesting situations for Russ. Fortunately, he's solved the problem in a most inventive way. He is now the proud owner of the one and only "Jet Exec". Yup, he stuck a Solar T-62 gas turbine on the bird! Actually, to say that he "stuck it on" would not be a fair statement. He's actually engineered a very slick conversion for the helicopter that he intends to sell as a kit. THe vertically mounted piston engine has been removed from under the rotormast and the Solar was installed to the rear of the rotor mast in a horizontal position. Most of the new engine sits above the rear fuselage in a new cowling designed for the Jet Exec. To provide power to the rotor, a sprint car rear end has been used (not to be confused with a Chevy Sprint rear end ;-). This is a heavy duty (some sprint cars can produce up to 1000 hp), light weight, fully machined rear diff and axle assembly that was slightly modified to give the final gear ratio that is needed for the rotors. Rotorway parts fit the new parts without any modification. In fact, he's working with Rotorway to come up with a kit that would include only the parts that are needed for a Jet Exec with Russ supplying the rest. The total cost of a Jet Exec is about $8000 LESS than a stock Exec 162! At this point, Russ has about 60 hours on the new engine with the last 50 being essentially trouble free. There was one flame-out early in the testing before the cowl was added. Russ figures that the 90 degree crosswind was blowing directly into one intake setting up a pressure differential across the compressor leading to compressor stall. Since the cowls were added, there's been no further problems. In fact, his 1 hour maintenance per 2 flight hours with the piston engine had dropped to about 1 hour in 20 flight hours. Additionally, the transmiaaion temps throughout have dropped quite a bit. Finally, he's been able to use a governor that maintains blade RPM to within 1 RPM. The piston engine was not powerful enough to handle a governor and he was lucky when the rotor RPM was within 10. So, here's the neat thing. This engine will produce approximately 185 hp at full power. It weighs about 150 lbs complete with gearbox and an overhauled engine, gearbox and FCU is available for about $4000 USD. Fuel burn is about 14 gallons per hour but it is burning Jet-A (typically cheaper and no worries about the future of 100LL). Russ's fuel bill has risen by about $6.00 CAD per hour. Maintenance is quite low and the engine has no TBO or cycle limits. It's run on an on-condition basis. The engine istself is quite simple and is easier to work on than a piston (in my opinion). This sounds like an interesting alternative for the Bearhawk. Even with the stock 54 gallon tanks, you would have 3 hours plus reserve. At 185 hp, it would work quite nicely into the HP range of the BH. Even with an elecrtical system (I don't think you could hand start a turbine ;-) the weight would be around 200 lbs with battery making it 100-150 lbs lighter than a comparable piston setup and about 250 lbs lighter than the 250 hp 540. Given that the empty weight of a 250 hp BH with full electrics will come in at about 1200 empty and a turbine version would be around 950 lbs. So, if you put 1300 lbs of fuel and payload in, the turbine powered plane would fall half way between the 180 hp and 250 hp piston version in power to weight ratios. Fuel burn at 75 % for a 230 hp Continental 0-470 (about the same power to weight ratio as the turbine) is about 12 gph vs. 14-15 gph for the turbine. However, Jet-A is cheaper around here than 100 LL so the cost difference would be negligable. There are also some other advantages to consider. First, the long, pointy clean cowl will reduce drag helping in cruise performance. Also, there is a risidual thrust of 85-100 lbs (static) from the exhaust that would certainly help at take-off and climb. Maybe I'm being naive, but this sounds like a good alternative. I haven't decided if I like the long-nosed cowl that would have to be used to offset the extra weight, though. The advantages would be low vibration, low maintenance, low purchase price, reliability, light weight, Beta and feather prop settings for float ops, no carb heat, no mixture and no 100 LL concerns. Disadvantages would be that you have an odd-ball engine, you'd have to go with a CS prop and the range/endurance would be less. There is also that idea of flying like Mel Gibson in Air America. I love that movie and watching that Turbine Pilatus land uphill on that scratch in the mountains is one of my all-time favorite flying scenes! If anyone else is interested, give me a shout and I'll see if I can get some more details on suppliers from Russ. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #7965 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Engines, again This sounds interesting. What prop is compatible with the engine. If the engine costs $4000 (in what condition?), it probably costs quite a bit less than the prop. bd +++ #7968 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Engines, again So far, the only prop that's working with the engine (that I know of is a Rotorway main rotor (at 25', it may be a little large ;-) .Of course, that would be the biggest engineering challengine of mounting this engine. BTW, $4000 was for an overhauled engine with an overhauled gearbox. I'll see if Russ can give me some more info. BTW, these engines are from GPU and APU applications. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #7970 From: turbine16830@y...> Subject: Re: Engines, again If your looking for information on a turbo prop check out ATP, www.atpcoinc.com or the atp1 Yahoo group. There are some pictures of the engine in a RV-4 on the yahoo group. I think you will find the engine very interesting. Scott +++ #7971 From: "Float-By Shooter" Subject: Re: Engines, again Just a note to point out that the subject of converted APU turbines has been thoroughly hashed out in rec.aviation.homebuilt, and that anybody considering such a powerplant would be well served to check in the newsgroup archives available at google.com. I went to their advanced group search page, at: http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en and did a search on r.a.h using the keywords "solar" "turbine" and "apu" and found a lot of good info about why this might not be such a good idea unless you really know what you are getting into. One of the participants in those discussion was formerly an engineer working with these units, and has some very specific concerns. As for your friend's success with the turbine in his rotorway, during the Mini-500 debates on RAH it was suggested that an experimental helicopter might be the one non-apu application where these turbines might work, since they will be run at a constant rpm, which is similar to the use they were designed for. Note that I don't have any stake in this, and am just repeating what I have read. I do agree that a turbine powered Bearhawk would be neat to see in action. Del Rawlins +++ #7997 From: bearhawk260@y... Subject: Re: Engines, again I would be careful here...An APU/GPU is not designed to run for extended periods of time. Something to consider??? Just food for thought. ht Wanabee Builder +++ #7998 From: egregvana@a... Subject: Re: Re: Engines, again i disagree------i have used and operated various pieces of military gpu's with this engine. it is designed to start and stop many times per day, well in excess of aircraft cycling, run at full rated power most of the time, and i have stared at many hr meters in excess of 5000 hrs. don't be afrain of it. ps never heard of any fod in any of these, evene in dusty, desert conditions.----------greg vana ( just ordering my plans next week ) +++ #8043 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Engine? What does Bob normally get for his O-540's? Thanks, Corky Scott +++ #8044 From: Bob Romanko Subject: RE: Engine? I think somewhere around $12,000. I could be wrong. Mike Meador? Planter Bob +++ #8045 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: Engine? > What does Bob normally get for his O-540's? Bob charged $14,700 for mine, a heck of a deal considering I didn't have a core and didn't have to spend time trying to find one. That price included carburetor, starter, and 1 new wiring harness. I'm going with a Lightspeed for the other hole. Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom CA +++ #8063 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Engine price > Corky, don't tell me that there is an 0-540 powered MK IV in > your future!!!! WOW, that'll be a rocket! Not sure what's going to happen. The deal I had cooking for the IO-470 may fall through. The A&P is having trouble with the cylinders in the core he's rebuilding, they're all cracked. He's very down on 470's right now. Corky Scott +++ #8064 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: form blocks This may be of interest to anyone who is currently working with form blocks. This isn't a revolutionary idea, but it had never occured to me before. I just made a form block for my firewall. I filed V-grooves around the edges of the form block where I felt crimps would later be required. After bending up the flange and shrinking the flange into all the V-grooves I seperated the form blocks and had a perfectly straight, finished, firewall. I had made an instrument panel the old fashioned way, bending the flange then crimping the edge with pliers. I like the firewall result so much that I am going to make another instrument panel with a grooved form block. To use this idea on the wing ribs would require two identical from blocks, since you need a left and a right, but it might be worth the effort as: 1) you finish the rib in one operation. 2) all your crimps are exactly the same, which will come in handy when skinning. 3) would allow you to place the rib back in the form block later to flange the lightening holes, which might be the biggest time saver of all. Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom CA +++ #8069 From: Tim Hickey Subject: Re: form blocks This can work ok, but a word of caution: Remember that the goal of crimping is to "use up" the "extra" metal that has been relocated at some angle (usually 90 degrees) from its original plane. If you get too aggressive in pounding the flange down into the v-groove you may find that you have not done all that you could because now you have stretched the metal into the bottom of the groove. This is just the opposite of what you want to do. I did make some of the ribs for my zenith CH-300 this way, but you do have to be careful and not smack the hell out of the metal over the groove. In all cases, the rib needed a little fine tuning after it came out of the form block. Also, and I think things are different with the Bearhawk, the Zenith nose rib has a flange most of the way around the nose of the rib. Using the v-groove method and forming the flutes on the sheet in the form block can make for an interesting time trying to get the formed rib off of the block. +++ #8071 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Engine price The one nice thing about the O-470 is the lower cost of overhauls. A factory new jug for the O-470 was only $1500 DAC (about $1000 USD) in 1997 when we had the top rebuilt on the 180. We were able to rebuild the existing jugs for $900 CAD (about $600 USD) and did not opt for the factory new option. The rebuilder said that a Cont was about 30% cheaper to buy parts for than a comparable Lycoming. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #8075 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Engine price > The one nice thing about the O-470 is the lower cost of > overhauls. Do you realize how wildly extreme that kind of money sounds to me?!! For an oversize Volkswagon engine!!! I don't *push* auto conversions, but my goodness two of those cylinders and you have a Ford V-6 aero modified ready to go. Two more of those cylinders and you have the PSRU. If the Ford 3.8L only made it to 500 hours before it needed an overhaul, that overhaul can be done for about the price of *one* cylinder of that 0-470. Bruce A. Frank +++ #8081 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: propellors At the risk of creating a discussion to rival that between a Ford man and a Chevy man, I was wondering if anyone had anything to say regarding the merits of McCaulley vs. Hartzell constant speed props? Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom CA +++ #8084 From: bearhwk272@a... Subject: Re: propellors I have a very biased opinion on prop makers. Hartzell is a first class outfit, Here at work we have done some development and research for Hartzell on several programs and found them to be very astute and concerned about their product and the consequences of a flawed product. Talk about "Worry Warts", and they should be so we do not have to. They have much more constant speed experience than the other mentioned corp and are utilized on more powerfull and demanding applications. I have never worked with McCaulley so my opnion is just founded on a good experience with one. Hey!this is America and technical bias is OK. They each have had challenges and have worked to rectify the situation. My big issue will be constant speed or a fixed pitch 3 blade wood / composite, then if constant speed, choise is Hartzell. Just finished final riveting of first wing structure. Now on to the left. Kevin Bearhawk 272 +++ #8087 From: "Lee H. Erb" Subject: Re: huuumm??? > Lycoming VO-435-23C-R Engine I am a little late in reading e-mail. This engine (VO-435) was installed in the Bell Model 47G to replace the Franklin (VO-430 (?) 200 hp) I believe the later Hiller H-23 used it also. It was later replaced by the Lycoming VO-540 in the Model 47G-2 (and 47J Ranger, Eisenhower's first presidential helicopter). > From the O-470 to the VO-470 resulted in changing the oil > system as well as the crankcase for vertical mount and taking > rotor pylon loads.(Possible change in bearings too because of > change in operating rpm.) Memory is kinda hazy but I think the above is accurate. After all, when I designed the engine mounting plate for the 47G-2 in 1953 (or early 1954) I was courting a good looking girl. I was sucessful and she made Russ (Erbman) a wonderful mother. Lee H. Erb Former Powerplant Installation Design Engineer Bell Helicopter. +++ #8255 From: "Donald Schindler" Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Lycoming 0-540 A1A5 Engine on ebay Guys, Before you buy any ebay engine, email the buyer and have him give you the serial number . With that information go to your local friendly I.A., and have him run all the AD's for that model. Frequently you can rule out an expensive mistake by doing that alone. For instance, this particular engine has over 24 AD's on it including piston pins, crankshaft cracks, oil pump and many others. If you buy it and find out later and take it to a shop-guess what-they wont touch it without a complete tear down so they dont get sued later. You gotta be real careful here. Happy hunting. Don I.A. +++ #8280 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: excellent exhaust Those that know RVs know about Larry Vetterman's stainless steel exhaust systems. He supplies Van's with their exhausts. I recently looked over a Harmon Rocket that was almost ready for flight to get some pictures of how an O-540 engine installation should look. The rocket had a Vetterman exhaust on it and I really liked the way it looked. It looked as though it would work on my Bearhawk so I called Larry to talk to him about it. After some discussion he said he could build me a "modified" rocket system. With the extra room in the Bearhawk cowl he was able to relax the pipes so they didn't pass so close to the sump and the engine mount. He added a slight angle at the rear to help the pipes clear the deeper firewall. The exhaust arrived today. It bolted right up and it is beautiful. It has five slip joints and three ball joints. The workmanship is exceptional. I would highly recommend this exhaust for anyone considering an O-540. Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom CA +++ #8286 From: "zipppydoggg" Subject: Why not more enigne power? With the recent messages concerning engines (E-bay and such),I went looking for some enigne information, being particularly ignorant in this area. I checked out the Continental engine web-site and note that they list 550 and 520 cubic inch engines as well as the recommended 470 inch Continental. Is there any particular reason that the 470 engine is recommended, and not the larger sizes? Is it a matter of weight and/or money? The mear though of 300 HP in a light BH is enough to make my palms sweat, who needs a Harmon Rocket when you can climb just as fast, with friends. Any float guys planning on using a really big engine? Yea the gas bill would be ruiniouss, but then again if I skipped lunch to pay for the gas, it would be better for my waiste line. Any thoughts? Rob Gaddy BH401 +++ #8287 From: "rodsmith52" Subject: Re: Why not more engine power? I would guess the main reason would be weight. When I was doing some research it looked like the O-470 weighs as much or more than a Lycoming O-540 and the 520s and 550s are heavier yet. I know there are some models of IO-470 rated at 260hp. Would like to hear from Will Graf what his total firewall forward weight is. Rod Smith #246 +++ #8288 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Why not more enigne power? There are some stories out there of powerful engines that generated so much torque that the plane flipped over on its back when the throttle was firewalled, but for the most part the limiting factor is weight of the engine. The 0-470, 520, 550 all are very heavy engines. Then again if they are making enough horse power.... Bruce A. Frank +++ #8289 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Why not more enigne power? With time in Bearcats, Mustangs, 350 hp, 900 pound biplanes etc., I've always felt torque is vastly overrated as a destroyer of airplanes. What is vastly underated as destroyers of airplanes are pilots who think a throttle should always be moved in a hurry. Also, as far as power goes: big engines almost always help climb, do only a little to help cruise and invariably badly compromise the original handling profile. If an airplane is kept light, it doesn't need a big motor for big performance. bd +++ #8292 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: Why not more engine power? Erbman's mantra on increasing engine power: 1. Shortens takeoff (some) 2. Increases climb rate 3. Very small increase in cruise and top speed (it's a velocity cubed thing) 4. Large increase in fuel flow* 5. Reduces range* 6. Reduces endurance* 7. Carrying more fuel to address 4-6 reduces useful load and costs more All of these assume you operate the larger and smaller engines at the same percent power. You can actually gain some efficiency by flying at the same power (i.e. 75% of 180 HP = 52% of 260 HP = 135 HP) but at a higher altitude. The idea here is to fly high enough that your 260 HP engine is producing 135 HP at full throttle (mixture distribution and fuel economy tend to be better at full throttle than part throttle). You'll fly at about the same indicated airspeed, but the true air speed at the higher altitude will be faster. However, to do this will sometimes push you to oxygen altitudes or flight levels. Besides those differences listed above: 1. Higher engine weight (reduces useful load unless max gross weight is increased) 2. Farther forward cg may require addition of ballast in tail, further reducing useful load 3. Change in moments of inertia may change spin and handling characteristics 4. "The Bob" said the maximum horsepower allowable is 260 HP. There's some reason he picked that number, and I'll bet it's supported with some sort of analysis. We don't know the reason. 5. According to budd, who has infinitely more Bearhawk flying experience than most of us, you don't NEED 260 HP or more--you just WANT 260 HP or more. 6. Never forget the Design Propagation Nightmare. Of course, in this case, each of us have to make up our own installation, so none of us will avoid this totally. There's probably more reasons to discourage following the common conception that "There's no substitute for cubic inches" but I'm tired of thinking about it. How many aircraft designers have been annoyed by almost every builder wanting to put in a bigger engine than he determined was optimum? Answer: Probably all of them. Here's one idea that I'm considering: Install an O-470-U like you find in a Cessna 180. Set the prop governor to limit Prop RPM to 2700 RPM. I'm "told" that the O-470-U will produce 230 HP at 2400 RPM and 260 HP at 2700 RPM. In some installations, the O-470-U is certified with a redline of 2700 RPM. In the Cessna 180, the engine is limited to 2400 RPM because the airframe was originally certified with a 230 HP engine and Cessna didn't want the cost of re-certifying it. Instead they de-rated the engine by reducing the RPM. Reducing RPM also reduces noise and increases TBO. Bearhawk operating procedures: For takeoff or landing, manually set the RPM to 2400. If situations warrant (e.g. short grass field), the extra 30 ponies are available just by pushing the prop control in the rest of the way. Feel free to throw your spears at this idea--be sure to support them with something other than old wives tales or hearsay... Russ Erb +++ #8295 From: "Mike Carriere" Subject: Re: Why not more engine power? Before I purchased the plans I asked Bob how much engine I can load into it and he warned "don't go over 400HP" . We have a TSIO 520M (310hp) to install and on floats (amphibs) it should perform decently but that's it. Floats are a tremendous drag and only cubic inches can speed up the "STEP" configuration. The only scary thing will be fuel capacity. Mike #463 #469 +++ #8296 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re:Weight, not HP is the enemy When I started fantacizing about the Desert Hawk (360hp, round motored BH version) I ran some numbers on the fuselage. The M-14P only weighs abut 450-470 pounds, but I found some areas that could use a little more metal in the fuselage and Bob agrees. On floats you see much worse landing loads than I probably even figured on, and the TSIO 520 is no light weight. it probably weighs as much as the Vendenyev does or more. Horsepower won't be a problem but weight might be. You'd better check with The Bob on your engine weight and how flying on possibly rough water is going to effect it. Incidentally, even on amphibs 310 hp with a good prop will yank the airplane up on the step MUCH faster than you think it will. This is no C-180. Think C-172 weights so even the 260 kicks butt. bd +++ #8297 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: Why not more engine power? Me thinks you remember incorrectly--the limits that we've been talking about for the last several years are 260 HP max, 400 POUNDS max. I think you're quoting the weight number. but you'll need to verify that because I have no supporting documentation other than what other list members have said. Russ Erb +++ #8299 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Why not more engine power? I can almost guarantee The Bob didn't say 400 hp because he breaks out in hives every time we discuss the Desert Hawk at 360 hp we've agreed upon most of the fuselage changes needed for that mod. bd +++ #8300 From: "Chris Vuxton" Subject: 100 LB - 200hp engine Let's throw some real interesting info into the mix. I'm going with a Mazda 13B rotary in my Hawk. The following is what's being talked about today on the flyrotary group. How long do you think a Hawk's nose would be with a 150lb/300HP engine? I think that comes out to $12K-$15K for 300 HP. Chris Vuxton +++ #8303 From: "rodsmith52" Subject: Engine Weight? I have had a great deal of frustration trying to find the actual weight of various engines with all accessories. It would probably be more helpful if Bob would give a maximum firewall forward weight for the design which would include the total weight for engine, prop and accessories. I believe most of the O-540s weigh more than 400 pounds with accessories so maybe Bob is talking about the bare engine. If you are at the point of mounting your engine please weigh it and forward the information to the list. Out of curiosity Mike, what does your 520 Continental weigh? Rod Smith #246 +++ #8304 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Engine Weight? Re: engine weight The little cheat sheet I have for Lycomings lists the original 0-540 w/accessories, no electrics, at 360 pounds and the 300 hp IO-540 at 433 pounds, same deal. Electrics add 37 pounds to the engine, not counting battery, cables, etc. So, 400-425 pounds is a good average for a 250-260hp 540. Although I've never asked Bob, he always appears to be talking pure engine weight w/accessories, not FWF w/prop. bd +++ #8306 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Engine Weight? For those that might be interested, while Bayard DuPont was installing the Ford 3.8L V-6 engines in his Defiant we had the opportunity to weight a FWF (less prop) 200 hp 0-360 installation side by side to the Ford. The 200 hp Ford installation (ready to fly: also less the prop, but with the PSRU, water, radiator, engine mount, and oil on board) weighed only 50 pounds more than the Lycoming installation. Bayard considered that a reasonable trade off for the money expenditure. Bruce A. Frank +++ #8308 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: Engine Weight? In an earlier posting, I had listed a URL that would get you to the Type Certificate for engines and propellers. I had printed out the one for the Continental IO-470-V in my 310. This is a 260 hp engine. The TC states that the dry weight of the engine is 406 lbs. without accessories, and average installed weight with accessories is approximately 450 lbs. Brian Cox, #478 +++ #8310 From: "Mike Carriere" Subject: Re: Engine Weight? I will try and get the right answer to your question of the weight for my TSIO 520M. I was told 535 lbs but that seems high even with the turbo and waste gate etc. When I spoke to Bob; and he did say 400 HP I was speaking of a B-17 Allison not the 520 so weight was not a concern. Mike #463, #469 +++ #8312 From: mprather@m... Subject: Re: Engine Weight? Don't know how accurate these are but its interesting. http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/engines.htm Matt- +++ #8314 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: Engine Weight? Hi Budd and others who asked for the URL: It was message no. 5556. But here is the text again so you don't have to go back. Thanks, Brian Cox, #478 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. +++ #8320 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: Engine Weight? Seems that the website has been changed. I waded down through the menus, which were not intuitive, and found the info. The new URL is http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet. If that doesn't work, here's how I drilled down: Go to www.faa.gov Click on the "Regulatory/Advisory" tab In the Search list at the top of the page, select "Certification" From the list on the left margin, select "Aircraft Certification" Under Design Approvals, select "Engines, Propellers, APUs" In the list across the top of the page, select "Engine Approvals" At the bottom of the page, select "(RGL) for TCDS by make, model, manufacturer" Select "Type Certificate Data Sheets (Make Model) Under Current TCDS, select "By Product Type" From the list in the window, select either "Aircraft", "Appliance", "Engine" or "Propeller" Whew! Brian Cox, #478 +++ #8321 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Engine Weight? A note on engine weights: A lot of the sources disagree so at one time I got ahold of the engine installation drawings from Lycoming for their more popular rubber bands. It was from those that I found the weight of the electrical accessories (starter/alternator) was consistently 37 pounds for Lycoming. As I look through the various listings, it appears that 35-40 pounds is often the discrepancy. Some of the lists include electrical and some don't. None of the lists makes note of whether the electic is included or not, so use the following as a guide, since I know it to be true, as per the factory drawings. 0-360-A1A is 253 pounds WITHOUT electric, WITH accessories (mags, carb, etc) IO-360-B1B is 295 pounds, as above. Use these to calibrate your list. bd PS The 200 hp IO-360 is, to my mind, not worth the extra weight, even with the constant speed. I say this having worn out three (1400 hrs each) and nearly done with my forth IO-360. I'd rather have a good 180. bd +++ #8322 From: "flywithtwo" Subject: Engine Type Certificate Data Sheets After wrestling with the FAA website to get the engine data, I took a little time to download three Type Certificate Data Sheets that may be of interest. I have posted the pdf files in the Bearhawk files. They are: E273.pdf - Continental O/IO 470 Type Certificate Data Sheet 1E4.pdf - Lycoming O 540 Type Certificate Data Sheet E286.pdf - Lycoming O 360 Type Certificate Data Sheet E295.pdf - Lycoming O 540 Type Certificate Data Sheet The older Continental engine sheets are under "Continental" on the website. The newer sheets are under "Teledyne". Same with Lycoming and Textron. I hope this is helpful. If we have any interest in other engines, I can download the files to the Bearhawk list. Brian Cox, #478 +++ #8323 From: Tim Subject: Re: 100 LB - 200hp engine Chris, all up weight for a 13B of 200-300hp is more than 150lbs.......Think that number is close to corew/ induction, without reduction/oil cooler/plumbing/accessories.......The 200hp all up is close to the 0320 installation weight.....Some links> Homebuilt Aircraft Rotary Engine Home Page http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~fortuned/homeop.html Crook forum on Mazda conversion http://www.monito.com/wankel/munday1.html Mazda articles in Contact! Magazine http://www.monito.com/wankel/munday2.html 321Tim +++ #8324 From: Tim Subject: Re: Engine Weight? Here's a link for some free looks/ideas on LYCOMING installations they're pdf files on Lycoming engine installation? GOTO> http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/manuals.html THEN scroll done to LYCOMING 0-360 Engine Installation 9 different files on putting in a 0-360.....Download away 321Tim Cold Lake. +++ #8329 From: Joel Mayhall Subject: Re: Engine Weight? Here are the url I have. http://www.prime-mover.com/Engines/Lycoming/Lyc_Cert_list.html Can't find one on Continental. Joel +++ #8330 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: RE: Engine Weight? Good grief!!! I have never worked a more difficult site. Particularly difficult/slow with my dial up connection. There is certainly nothing intuitive about it. The two addresses below get you close(r). Had to right click to "view source" to get these addresses. Anyway, thank you for your effort. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/CurrentTCDSbyProductType?OpenView&Start=1&Count=200&Expand=3.1.69.1#3.1.69.1 http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/CurrentTCDSbyProductType?OpenView&Start=1&Count=200&Expand=3.1.70.2#3.1.70.2 Anyone trying to get info on these sites, there is a lot of trial and error to find the list of the info that shows most/all of the engines. The dates were a guide, pick the latest and the largest and you may hit the listing that contains the engine about which you want data. Bruce A. Frank +++ #8343 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: RoverHawk - Ignition/overview I don't know about Gord's calculations, but the reason we use larger diameter distributors in auto conversions is because the ignition systems of most automobiles put out a heck of a lot more power than a mag. The wide spacing of the terminals inside the cap helps prevent cross arcing at high altitudes. (thinner air offers less resistance to arcing...that's why piston engined planes flown at high altitude will have pressurized mags) Bruce A. Frank +++ #8344 From: "rodsmith52" Subject: Engine Weight Again Thanks Brian for posting the Type certificate info, also Budd for clearing up the accessory weight issue. Lots of good stuff in there when you dig through it. Looks to me like the Lycoming O-540s are in general about 30 pounds lighter than the Continental O-470s. Lightest O-540s are the J models which are in Maules and Cherokee 235s(356 pounds). They are rated at 235 hp at 2400 rpm. I know that Maule float plane pilots have been known to adjust their prop governor to get more rpm and hp. I now realize from looking through the type certificate that they probably wouldn't produce 260 hp at 2700hp due to having a different camshaft. The O-540 E models weigh 366 pounds and are rated at either 250 or 260hp. With a lightweight alternator and starter its conceivable to have a 390 lb 260hp engine. Add a composite 3-blade prop like Bob's and you will have a high thrust light weight combination. Sounds good to me. Rod Smith #246 +++ #8381 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: prop on ebay > Anyone interested in a fixed pitch prop, check out ebay item no. > 1678580825. It's a yellow tagged McCauley 1A200FA8449. It has > 5 hours since yellow tag on 8/2/2001. Diameter 84" pitch 49". > Current bid is $1000. It will take 235-260 hp. I already have > a prop, otherwise would bid on this one for my Bearhawk. The > 1A200 design is used on the L-19 Bird Dog. Happy hunting. It seems to me that this prop would require a significant re-pitch to exploit the upper cruise range of the Bearhawk. It would likely make a good prop for the plane on floats. Bruce A. Frank +++ #8476 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: Prop > What model and diameter prop did you buy? I got an HC-C3YR-1RF/F7693F. It is the conversion model Hartzell recommended for the model engine I have. It weighs 77.5 lbs., with spinner, which is about 18 lbs more than Bob's prop. It is 78 inchs diameter. Bob recommeded I try to find an 84" 2-blade but 80" is about all that is available. It was actually cheaper to buy a new, complete, 3-blade than it would have been to buy new 84" blades and have them mounted to a used hub. Go figure. I had bought a 2-blade spinner for a Hartzell prop that came off a Maule. It mounts to the starter ring gear. A new 3-blade spinner came with the new prop so the other is for sale if anyone wants it. $200 complete. Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom CA +++ #8477 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Re: Prop >> What model and diameter prop did you buy? > I got an HC-C3YR-1RF/F7693F. I picked up a Hartzell HC-82 VF on ebay that was removed from a C-182. It has 4000 TT, and 140 SPOH, and also includes the spinner. I checked out the Type Cert. Data Sheet on the FAA website. This prop has been TC'ed for just about every model of O-470 and IO-470, and many models of O-540. I know that buying a prop at the early stages of the game is out of order, but my main activities have been scrounging parts. It was too good a deal to pass up, and I'm pretty convinced that my Bearhawk will be powered by an O-470 or IO-470. Even if I change my mind, I can probably swap or sell this prop. Brian Cox, #478 +++ #8570 From: sonny cilley Subject: Re: Digest Number 656 Hi guys, tonight while leaving our EAA meeting ,one of the guys asked me if I had and engine for the BH yet, no I don't. he asked if I would be interested in a IO 360 with accesories for 3500.00 it came out of a bent helicopter and he is just finishing a RV 4 and doesn't want to get into another project for awhile. is there any disadvantage of installing an helicopter engine. I'm leaning towards buying the engine even if for a core. the engine has 1100 hrs on it. 400 hrs to go until tbo. what I need is some insight . Sonny #234 +++ #8573 From: "Lee H. Erb" Subject: Re: Digest Number 656 > ...any disadvantage of installing an helicopter engine. I designed engine installations for Bell Helicopter 48 years ago.. The engine probably is an IVO which is a vertical mounting. Stay away from it. There is a long story why. The only helicopter (that I can remember) with a horizontal engine was Charlie Seibel's Cessna CH-1. That bit the dust 40 years ago. I would be interested in what you find out. Lee +++ #8575 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Digest Number 656 Doesn't Enstrom also have horizontally mounted engines? In my mind's eye I see a cooling fan in the Enstrom that was in a vertical position on the end on the engine. Not sure. Bruce A. Frank +++ #8576 From: Catherine Webb Subject: Re: Digest Number 656 er...I have an "experimental" licensed PA-20 (another long story) but it has an IO-360 C1E6 in it that was billed to me as a "helicopter engine" - It has been flying in aircraft (a long-ez, for 1700 hours, now my plane for ~50 hours (after a rebuild). I'd sure be interested in the "long story as to why" not use it horizontal. Might explain some of the little quirks it has... +++ #8577 From: Tony Dean Subject: Re: Digest Number 656 This months Kitplans has an article about a Mustang II where he used a helicopter engine. Seems like he made a couple of mods but I was not sure if the changes were required or optional. Regards Tony Dean +++ #8578 From: Jim Ash Subject: Bearhawkers do it horizontally... I spoke with the folks from Canadian Home Rotors that make a Bell-47 clone called the Safari (was the Baby Belle) a few years back at the Sun 'n Fun. They're going the other way; taking a horizontal Lycoming O-320-B2B and standing it on end. I had a discussion with one of them about this concept and they were confident things were worked out. The two things that I recall of the discussion were thrust directions and oil flow/distribution. Their mount doesn't put the engine through much linear thrust, only torque. Going the other way and taking a helicopter engine and mounting it so it's constantly trying to yank the crank out one end might need some more research before you get too excited. This same issue comes up when people mount Corvair engines in airplanes. Does this thing have the same bearing structure as a horizontal engine? I'm not saying don't do it; I'm saying get your engineering straight. Jim Ash +++ #8579 From: sonny cilley Subject: Re: Digest Number 657 Hi guys, thanks for some info on the IO-360 . I got pretty excited about the find but have smoothed over now and plan to ask some questions about how and where the engine came from and about the mounting. a friend of mine built a super cub from scratch and has one of these engines in it . as for the engines owner, if it isn't anything I want, I'll pass on the owners name and phone# . thanks . Sonny #234 +++ #8580 From: "teyeomans" Subject: engine serial numbers? How about a question off the normal track... I am getting ready to send in my paperwork to register my Hawk... Since I have an autoconvert that I have done and don't really want to use a ford No. Is it normal for the engine converters to put thier own Ident on the engine and prsu for the new engine number or is the original ford serial No. or what ever required.. Thanks Tom Yeomans +++ #8581 From: Mike Subject: Re: engine serial numbers? You need to ask your inspector what he wants. The requirements vary from FSDO to FSDO. Who ever you plan to have look at your airplane will tell you what he expects (like if all the ADs from FORD were complied with ;-). Please tell me that you plan to paint (or have painted) your aircraft some other color than maroon. I think 4 Maroon Bearhawks are enough. Later - Mike +++ #8582 From: owalinski@a...> Subject: Re: engine serial numbers? I just got my Teenie Two inspected. My engine (VW) had new cases...well, the engine was built up from different parts...my engine number was whatever I selected...which in my case was 001. I stamped this onto the the case, but my inspectors never even looked at it. The work I got was that you can use any number you want, as it is "your" engine. otto +++ #8588 From: "Lee H. Erb" Subject: Re: Digest Number 656 > ...interested in the "long story as to why" not use it > horizontal. Before I go off on a deep end again, I want to do a little "historical research" into other helicopter recip installations. But, in the Bell installation, the engine bearings, oil system (different sump) were different and the case was used to snub the pylon motion (fatigue loads). I think there other changes, but I better do my "research" first. Lee +++ #8589 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 658 > This same issue comes up when people mount Corvair engines in > airplanes. Does this thing have the same bearing structure as > a horizontal engine? Anytime you simply bolt a prop to an auto engine you run into this issue. For one thing, the engine's are spinning too fast at the rpm where they develop rated power for a standard prop to be bolted to the crank directly. Then again, if you do bolt a prop to them and turn them more slowly, they aren't producing rated power. Finally, the cranks aren't designed for the type of loads that the prop will apply to it in flight. You should see the difference between a Lycontinental and any auto engine at the output end of the crank. The aircraft engines have an enormous bearing surface to support the prop loads while the auto engine journal is no different from the other journals. This is because in auto application, all the crank does is spin in place. No bending loads are applied to the end of the crank. That's why there really needs to be some kind of external bearing support attached to the engine to keep the crankshaft from experiencing loads it wasn't designed to withstand. Corky Scott +++ #8590 From: sonny cilley Subject: helicopter engine hi guys, (Jim) I talked to a couple A.I.'s and they didn't think the engine would be a problem. there was something about enlargeing hole on th prop flange, and the normal AD to contend with. I talked to Cliff who have a helicopter engine(IO-360 ) in his super cub he built and he hasn't had anything out of the ordinary happen to his. I plan on going into this slow, check paper work and all, the seller isn't in a hurry to get rid of the engine and I'm not in a hurry to buy one. it will be alot of yrs. before I'll need one. well its almost 8:00 pm and its time to go work on the ailerons, see ya later, Sonny # 234 +++ #8627 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Diesel Engine Has anyone looked seriously at the SMA SR305 engine? It seems to good to be true but I've yet to see a price. Dry weight is 400 lbs. Turbo provides 190 hp all the way to 12,500'. It produces 230 HP for take-off and 200 hp max continuous. It has a .35 specific fuel consumption and it burns Jet-A. There is absolutely no mixture, carb heat or mags to worry about and it is being set up as a "single power lever" engine which will provide propellor pitch control automatically. This means that the amount of required instrumentation on the panel would also drop. Really, you could get away with a fuel flow and RPM guage plus a small panel to warn of engine parameters out of the norm (hmmm... kinda reminds me of my cars). All of the distractions would be removed so that the pilot can concentrate on flying. The pilot would only have to adjust the power to the fuel burn and cruise speed needed to reach the destination. I'm sure that the curiosity in most of us will end up meaning that there will be a full set of instruments, but it isn't really needed. Currently, it is flying in a Cessna 182 and development has begun at both Maule and Cirrus to power thier planes. It is now certified in France. Check out: www.smaengines.com I'd be interested in knowing if anyone has pursued them for a price or if they are even shipping new engines yet. Maybe THIS is the engine that Budd should be looking at for the kits..... Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #8629 From: "erbman89b" Subject: Re: Diesel Engine > Has anyone looked seriously at the SMA SR305 engine? Ken--before you spend any money, please read "Is There A Diesel In Your Future" at http://www.eaa1000.av.org/newsletr/9901nltr.htm#Diesel This will raise several points that you should consider in making your decision. Russ Erb +++ #8630 From: John Dougherty Subject: Re: Re: Diesel Engine If not a diesel, why not a Mazda 20B 3 rotor normally aspirated. It would give you between 240 and 270 hp and if you wanted more you could turbo it for over 360 hp? +++ #8631 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Re: Diesel Engine Anyone ever built a diesel Wankle? Bruce A. Frank +++ #8632 From: "Tony Chisum" Subject: Fwd: Re: SMA SR305 Ken or anyone else that might be interested. Here is the price on the SMA SR305 diesel. The engine will be available the 4th quarter of this year. Current price is $52,000. Thanks for your inquiry. I like the engine but not the price. Tony +++ #8633 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: SMA SR305 > Current price is $52,000. Thanks for your inquiry. I see absolutely no advantage to an engine that costs that much unless gasoline were banned from the face of the earth. And, at that point, because of the expense of such an engine, it might become worthwhile to build my own gasoline cracking still. Bruce A. Frank +++ #8637 From: "rodsmith52" Subject: Fwd: Re: SMA SR305 There is another problem with this engine besides the price. In one magazine I read that it requires 4 times !! the cooling air of a lycoming of similar power. Thats got to equate to a significant drop in cruise speed. Even if that was a misprint at this price I dont think any of us will be using this engine. Rod Smith #246 +++ #8640 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: SMA SR305 Well, even if the SMA engine doesn't pan out, there is still the Cont. Monoblock that has a lot of promise. When I talked to the guys at the Continental booth at Arlington, there were a few promising comments. first, they are in the process of mounting the prototype engine on a C-337 to do the initial flight tests. Second, they still expect a production model to be available in the next 5 years. Third (and most importantly) is that the cost shold be "roughly the cost of overhauling a current 200 hp engine". They, too are promising a single power lever control, lower fuel burn, Jet-A compatible, slightly lower weight and full certification. The one big difference is that this is a liquid cooled engine allowing for more effective cabin heat and more aerodynamic cooling. I was impressed. Now, if they can only deliver. THe Lycoming deisel offering has been shelved according to their reps. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #8643 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Re: Diesel Engine I've looked into the rotaries and they are preety good. Tracey Cook has one running in an RV-4. THe only downside is the high fuel burn of around 0.5lb/hphr. However, if you can get the engine on the plane cheap enough, it can offset a lot of the extra fuel costs. BTW, compared to other NEW Lycs and Conts, the list price of the SMA is not that far fetched. I was looking over a price list from Lyc a few months ago and a new IO-520, list, is around the $50K USD. A 720 is almost $80K. Fortunately, most of the kit manufacturers can get away with selling engines a lot cheaper making it more practical. Personally, I don't plan on doing anything with the firewall forward until the rest of the plane is done. Then I can look at what's available. I would like to avoid the Lycontasaurs in favour of an engine designed in the past 50 years. I read the article that Russ sent out and respectfully disagree with many of the opinions in the article. The article kept using 60-70 year old deisel engine designs as a comparison. When he starts to talk about the deisels feature of no ignition system, he then asks the question of when was the last time you had a problem with the ignition in your car. Sure, almost never, but the questions should have been " when was the last time you had a problem with ignition in your Lycoming/Continental" Then the answer is about quite different. 12 new plugs every year or even twice a year at around $20 a pop! Not to mention the replacement mags every 2-4 years. He also talks about the exhaust smell. If the engine installation and exhaust are adequately designed, this shouldnt be a problem and besides, far more people fly on Jet-A than on Avgas and this isn't a problem for them. The author also ignores the very real problem of the 100 LL fuel going away. Personally, I think that we will see the end of 100 LL within the next 10 years and there will have to be something in place to replace it. So far, the deisel engine development seems to be the most promising. I have seen some info on a new "smart plug" that can fit in most reciprocating engines and essentially alows the engine to run on a wide variety of fuels. The beauty of the system is that there is no real ignition system needed, just the plugs and a 12 v source for starting/idle. It's quite impressive and may provide another solution. It's running on a 4-cylinder Continental mounted on a J-3. They also have a Mooney 231 running with the Smart Plugs that they are planning to convert to Jet-A. At this point, they are still in development and shopping for a manufacturing facility, but it holds a great deal of promise especially for homebuilts. http://www.smartplugs.com/ Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #8644 From: "Del Rawlins" Subject: Re: Re: Diesel Engine > Personally, I don't plan on doing anything with the firewall > forward until the rest of the plane is done. Then I can look > at what's available. If you think you might possibly use a diesel engine, I think the fuel filler inlets will have to be larger to accept the jet fuel nozzles, unless you want to carry a funnel everywhere. There are other concerns such as providing flow-through venting in the tanks according to the deltahawk website. > would like to avoid the Lycontasaurs in favour of an engine > designed in the past 50 years. I read the article that Russ > sent out and respectfully disagree with many of the opinions > in the article. The article kept using 60-70 year old deisel > engine designs as a comparison. The author keeps bringing up the 350 GM (oldsmobile) diesel engine that he had some experience with. That was probably one of the worst engine designs of any kind ever produced by any manufacturer. It actually began life as a gasoline engine, and was somewhat reinforced and fitted with different heads and a diesel fuel system. It was a kludged together mess that just didn't hold up in the field. > When he starts to talk about the deisels feature of no > ignition system, he then asks the question of when was the > last time you had a problem with the ignition in your > car. Sure, almost never, but the questions should have been " > when was the last time you had a problem with ignition in your > Lycoming/Continental" I had to postpone one of my student cross countries due to a dead mag on the plane I had scheduled. Right now my biggest concern with an aero-diesel engine is cold starting. Living in Alaska and planning on operating out of primitive fields (i.e. no outlets available) that could be the deciding factor for me. Del Rawlins +++ #8645 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Re: Diesel Engine I certainly cant see the deisel being any worse than Lycs and Conts. I know bush operators up north drain the oil from the aircraft and store it inside overnight. It is then poured back in the engine prior to starting. I't a messy way to do it but a whole lot safer than using open flame heaters to preheat the engines. Even here in Calgary, well south of 60, block heaters are a standard item on all vehicles. The dealerships don't even ask if you want one. It's just installed. I don't know if there is anyway to avoid this problem short of a turbine (there may even be problems there as I'm not as familiar to their operation). Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #8646 From: "Montee, Dan L." Subject: diesel aircraft engines I offered this up as my choice in a past discussion on diesels. I'm still interested and I'm watching these guys closely. They will probably be ready to distribute engines about the same time I finish the BH airframe and they just happen to be a local company. http://www.deltahawkengines.com/ Dan Montee # 415 +++ #8649 From: Fred Spain Subject: Engines/fuel SMART PLUGS I was most impressed with the "Smart plug" tent at Oshkosh last year and went by there to talk to those folks everyday. I watched them run an O-200 with smart plugs on an airboat the first day and was impressed, but the EAA officials would not allow any spinning props in the display areas after that. I have a GM LX5 3.5L aluminum V6 (new crate long block engine) for my Bearhawk. No ignition or fuel system. I'm hoping the smart plugs will be a viable option by the time I'm ready. Smart plugs and a Holly carburetor could give me a running engine. Fred Spain +++ #8652 From: "Greco, Bob" Subject: RE: Re: Diesel Engine I am looking at a Continental Packette PC-6 engine. This is the ground power version of the Continental aircraft 0-470 engine. It is rated at 150 Hp At 2400 RPM as a ground power engine while the aircraft engine is rated at 230hp at 2600 RPM. I have compared the parts catalogs of the PC-150 and the 0-470 aircraft engine and find that all of the internal part numbers are the same with the exception of the crankshaft. The crankshaft flange differs from the aircraft in that it is thicker and does not have a hollow center like the aircraft. The cylinders are single plug but could be drilled for a second plug or aircraft cylinders could be used. The crankcase can use bolt on mount legs similar to the aircraft engine bolt on legs. The crankcase has a pad for the second magneto drive gear support but would need the two mounting studs installed and a hole drilled to intersect with the oil passage. The accessory case already has a second magneto pad. An aircraft carburetor would need to be used preferably a HAC style or an Ellison type. In other words, the work required to adapt it for use as an aircraft is simple when compared with adapting an automobile engine. I have weighed a PC-6 engine that was modified for an airboat by adding mount legs similar to the aircraft engine, a GMC flywheel & ring gear, a Toyota starter and belt driven alternator and a propeller adapter so a Lycoming type of fixed pitch propeller could be used. The engine weighed 422 LB which compares with the Cessna 0-470-U engine at 412 lb. This was still a single magneto engine but had the Bendix magneto which is almost double the weight of Slick mags. It also still had the cast oil sump which could easily be replaced by an aircraft sump. Bottom line.. the weights are almost identical. I have not been able to find anyone who has used one of these engines in an aircraft. I also have not been able to identify a reason that would cause a problem in doing so. Does anyone have any experience with them that could point to not using them in an aircraft? They are inexpensive and readily available. They are found all over the Southeastern part of the US where they are used as airboat engines, I also saw several in Alaska on airboats. The engine that I have my eye on is still in the sealed bag with all the preservatives and they are still blue. It has never even been started since it was overhauled for the military. Price is less than $3500. The military paperwork that is with the engine says that everything is new except the crankshaft which is standard dimensions, the cylinders which were bored +.005 and the crankcase. +++ #8653 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: SMA SR305 The Monoblock development is being funded by NASA's GAP (General Aviation Powerplant) initiative. Here's last year's OSH presentation: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/AST/GAP/av00/tcm/ And the general page is: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/AST/GAP/ Hope this helps, Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #8655 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: RE: Re: Diesel Engine I have one of the same engines. There are dual mags available that run off the same shaft so you probably wouldn't have to go to the trouble of machining things to accept the second mag. But a better choice would be to convert to crank fired ignition. Using a modern high voltage ignition system would also dramatically boost the hp output. Many think that dual plugs are for redundancy. The main need for dual plugs is because of the large diameter cylinders combined with a head poorly designed to efficiently propagate the flame front. A second plug would do just about everything it takes to push the horsepower close to the 230 level. This is still a pretty heavy engine for the HP output. Repair and overhaul parts are MUCH less expensive than for the certified type. Now, you speak of an aircraft type carb, are you sure? My engine uses a downdraft type carb. The intake is on the top of the engine case, not the bottom. On mine it would be easy to bolt on a Holley. One other thing, look with a careful eye at the oil pan. Mine is hard piped into the accessory case (1.5" diameter), and though I haven't tried to take that area apart it appears to present a significant work-around if I wanted to replace the cast pan with a sheet metal one. My manual doesn't show things well enough, but that pipe connection could actually be where the oil pump drive goes from the drive gear to the sump. I, as you, also haven't located anyone who has used this engine in an airplane. Lots of people have told me that they are used in planes, but I have never made direct contact with anyone. Three or four years ago I contacted half a dozen airboat companies in Florida who have kits designed to set these engines up for airboat use. Several of them could supply running engines for as little as $1000 USD. I bought mine here in California as a project. Something to investigate when I have time, after I install my auto conversion. There is more info available on the do's and don'ts of my auto conversion than on converting the Packette from a ground power unit to an aircraft engine. But, again, like you, I think it can be done for a price much lower than a Continental 0-470 purchase or rebuild. I really cannot say whether $3500 is a good price if I cannot find someone who really knows if it will work (convert) in my plane. Bruce A. Frank +++ #8656 From: "geraldmorrissey" Subject: Diesel I fly out of an airport that has an RV6 with a Mazda engine based on it. It is without a doubt the loudest single engine homebuilt I have ever heard. It is noise polution at its worse. According to Adkins who builds these units, it just goes with the territory. Think long and hard before you waste your hearing on one of these units. Ah, the sound of a Continental 6. Music to the ears. +++ #8657 From: Jimmy Mathis Subject: RE: Re: Diesel Engine I also have one of these and I do intend to investigate further. I posed this same question on the list and one of our quieter members contacted me and we discussed this engine. Contact Bill jernagen at 813 752 9214 for drilling the second plug hole (around $30. per jug) He also has parts. I believe (if my notes are correct) that Mac at 912 896 3131 also has parts. Last, but not least, again, If I have my notes right, Bob is an engineer who has already done the conversion 602 231 7239. I will try to contact Bob and let ya'll know. Jimmy 501 +++ #8658 From: "rodsmith52" Subject: 100LL fuel Yes it is true that we will be losing 100LL and it may happen much sooner than 10 years from now. It doesn't mean that we wont be able to fly our Lycs and Continentals. With fuel injection and electronic ignition there is no problem running 91 octane fuel with a 8.5 compression ratio. Thats where us experimental guys have a big advantage over certified aircraft owners. The liquid cooled airpower people (liquid cooled clyinders on Lycoming) told me that they could safely use 9.2/1 compression pistons with 91 octane. What I wouldn't want to be doing at this time would be building an engine with 10/1 pistons. I love all the discussion on alternative engines, it sure seems like there has to be something better out there. I hadn't looked at the Deltahawk site in a couple years. Looks like they are making some good progress. By the way, Jet A is good for -40 C or F take your pick. I dont want to be out flying when it is that cold anyways. Here at Prudhoe we distill arctic flow diesel good for -65 from good ol Prudhoe Bay crude oil. Rod Smith #246 +++ #8677 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 666 > If the current generation of aircraft conversions are too loud, > that is because they are using little or no muffler at all. In > the car, just a single glass pack was enough. With a muffler the > size of the one on my 0-360, my little RX-2 was SILENT! Ron, I own an '85 RX7. It has three mufflers, one of which is called a thermal reactor and it made from cast iron and is pretty heavy. I have every hope that the 13B will make a good aircraft engine, and in fact had one in the shop for several years befor I added up all the plusses and minusses and decided for some thing more conventional. Well, conventional in the sense that it's a piston engine. I truly do not wish to dash any hopes of those who wish to use the Rotory engine. I wish them best luck. It's just that to pilots, the sound of the engine is often music to the ears. The problem is that for the rest of the world, that music is often percieved as if it were gangsta rap. I don't know where the future is going at this point, but "experimental" airplanes bellowing off over sleeping neighborhoods are surely testing the situation. Europe already has MUCH more stringent noise regulations for airplanes. They achieved them by grounding the entire GA fleet until they'd met the rules. European GA has responded with engine and muffler combinations that are significantly less noisy than what is allowed still in the USA. It seems only a matter of time. Corky Scott +++ #8679 From: "jbuecker1" Subject: Diesel Engines Does anyone know if any of these engines require only 1 battery? Both of my trucks (1 Ton Pickups, Chevys) and most other small applications in trucks/cars that I have seen have 2 batteries and a heavy duty alternator. Also during the cold ( For Wis.)winters I run blended fuel and add "Anti-Gel for good measure. Comments? Thanks, John +++ #8683 From: John Dougherty Subject: Re: Digest Number 666 I think Tracey has the cooling problems licked and as far as noise I plan on a turbo on mine which results in a quieter aircraft than ones with conventional engines and also gives you a lot more power....John +++ #8700 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: Re: Diesel Engine > Our biggest problem was lead fouling in the lower plugs. We've > tried a number of things indluding ground leaning, auto-fuel, > etc. However, we still change the plugs with new or cleaned > ones every year. I believe that we were using REM-38E's, but > it's been a while since I looked at the numbers. The engine is > an O-470S. The mags were rebuilt a couple of times, but since > they bought the new Slicks about 5 years ago, there hasn't > been a problem. I'll certainly pass on the massive electrode > info to my father as I'm sure he'd like to cure the plug > problem once and for all. Do you have any other info or web > sites on these plugs? There is pretty good information in the Aircraft Spruce catalog. They show what each designator in the Champion part number represents. For instance, your REM-38E is a massive electrode type, with two electrodes. Cost in Aircraft Spruce are $16.50 each. Here is the information from Spruce: REM-38 E First letter, Resistor: R=resistor type no character=no resistor Second letter, Barrel Style: E=Shielded 5/8"-24 thread H=Shielded 3/4"-20 thread no character=unshielded Third letter, Mounting thread & Reach & Hex size: B=18mm, 13/16", 7/8" M=18mm, 1/2", 7/8" J=14mm, 3/8", 13/16" L=14mm, 1/2", 13/16" U=18mm, 1 1/8", 13/16" Two letter digit, Heat rating: Lower number = cold Higher number = hot Last letter, Electrode Design: None=conventional single electrode E=two prong massive N=four prong massive P=fine wire, platinum W=fine wire, iridium B=two prong massive, tangent to center My IO-470 U uses the RHB-32E, available at Aircraft Spruce for $16.50 each. An STCed substitute is the BG-341, with NOS plugs available from Aircraft Spruce for $6.50 each. These will work in the IO-470, but will not work in an O-470, which uses the short reach plugs. Your "M" plugs have 1/2" reach, my "B" plugs have 13/16" reach. Other than that, they have the same mounting thread diameter, 18mm, and hex size, 7/8". By the way, the type cert data sheet for the IO-470 V lists the Bendix SR6N-200 model magnetos, which is what I have, along with the RHB-32E plugs. It also lists the Slick 6310 or 6380 mags as approved, along with REM-38E or REM-40E plugs. I guess that means that it is OK to use the short reach plugs in the IO-470. Brian Cox, #478 +++ #8761 From: "Lee H. Erb" Subject: Helicopter Engines Now is the time to extract foot from mouth. Talked to a classmate of mine who retired from Lycoming (turbines) and who talked to his recip friends. Much of this you already knew. Converting the VO-xxx engines to horizontal would be all but impossible. The oil sump on the verticals are on the bottom. They took fatique loads from the rotor pylon. The front crankcase would have to be replaced with a sump type case. The Thrust bearing might not be strong enough. Rpm and power settings are different making carbon buildup possible. Cooling baffles are different. The horizontal helicopter engines, such as in the Robinson might be okay. They are designed to operate at a higher rpm and power. There may be more maintenance required because of plug fouling and general carbon buildup at lower rpm and power settings. The thrust bearing would need to be checked to be sure it was rated high enough. Lee H. Erb +++ #8763 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Rotating Spark Plugs Here's an interesting article from the Lycoming archives that may be of some use... http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/why_rotate_spark_plugs.html Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #8764 From: TC4X@A... Subject: Helicopter Engines It is my understanding that the Robinson eggbeaters have aircraft Lycomings in them right off the shelf. I have done some maintenance on an R22 and it appears that it has a fan installed for cooling and other than that, it would bolt right in an airplane. The inter cylinder cooling baffles were the same as airplane stuff too. Terry +++ #8766 From: "Lee H. Erb" Subject: Helicopter Engines > Robinson eggbeaters have aircraft Lycomings in them right off > the shelf. I would not doubt that Frank would do that. Frank worked at about all of the helicopter manufacturers before he started his own company. He was a very practical (cost conscience, Keep It Simple) engineer. At Bell he helped us when we were doing tail rotor research. As I remember he was the person who convinced the "old" rotor designers that low inertia blades were more important than tip weights for changing the fatique loads. You will notice that his tail rotor is very simple and apparently effective. I have admired him for what he has accomplished as an engineer. Lee +++ #8876 From: "Montee, Dan L." Subject: Continental engine A question for those of you familar with the various aircraft engines. It appears that Lycoming is preferred over Continental. I also see conversation regarding the Lycoming 360 C.I. but the Continental 360 is seldom mentioned. What is the basis for the preference and why is the Continental 360 avoided? I'm a long way from needing an engine. I'm just reseaching the options. Dan Montee #415 +++ #8880 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: Continental engine I wouldn't say Lycoming is preferred over Continental--I'd say Lycoming gets more press than Continental. I'm far from an expert in this area, but here's what I've put together so far: 1. Other than the O-200, Continental only makes 6-cylinder engines. 2. The O-300 (C-170) and O-360 (T-41D) haven't been produced in years. You don't hear about the Continental O-360 (6-cyl, 200 HP) much because there ain't that many of them. 3. About the smallest Continental you'll find is an O-470 (230-260 HP) 4. Continental doesn't make an engine in a size suitable for Van's RVs, the most popular homebuilt. That's why you always hear about the Lycoming O-360 (and you can't get one cheap--they're all in RVs) 5. The Bob used Lycomings in the Prototypes for whatever his reasons were. 6. Continental O-470s are pretty bullet proof and generally AD free. Ask the Cessna 180/182 owner who has one. My opinion is that both Lycs and Conts are good and suitable engines. I'm leaning toward an O-470U because they are available for less $$ than O-540s and I have several friends with good experiences with them. One has an O-470U with about 1900 hours on it. Most people are surprised to hear it is still running, because far too many people abuse their engines and they need overhaul long before that. Russ Erb +++ #8882 From: pfflyerz@c Subject: baffle bushed I am thrilled to announce that after 62 hours of work, I have finished the baffles for my O-540. They entail an incredible amount of work, especially without plans to operate from, but I am very pleased with the result. I have been laying out my panel and have been trying to locate some switches I like. I prefer rocker switches over toggle switches, but I haven't found much of a selection, until today. Carling Technologies at (www.carlingtech.com) has a fantastic assortment of rocker switches and switch/breakers in all colors and sizes and styles. Definitely worth a look. If anyone has access to a Citabria owners manual, the one with the cartoon airplane doing a loop on the cover, could you please send or fax me a copy of the cover? I have an idea for nose art on #232 that would incorporate something similiar to that cartoon. Much obliged, Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom CA +++ #8885 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Continental engine Most of what you have said is right, but it is seldom a Continental runs to TBO without having the jugs done. They are more prone to cracking than Lycomings and are a little more sensitive to cooling (hence the cracks). You can crack Lycomings too, but it's not as common. I've never considered any engine bullet proof, but the 0-360 Lycomings and 540 Lycs come close. Don't use an IO-360 (200 hp) Lyc in anything. They leak and are too heavy for their weight, but they'll usualy run to TBO with no problems (I'm 800 hours into my fourth one right now). bd +++ #8889 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: Continental engine The Continental is an IO-360 and is a six cylinder engine. I've had a couple of friends with Cessna Hawk XPs who really like them. I've heard that they run really smooth. They are also used on Skymasters, a turbo version in the Piper Turbo Arrow, and a turbo version in the Mooney Bullet conversion. I'd certainly consider one if the right deal came along. I think the new IO-240 is just a 4 cyl version of the old IO-360. I've owned a Mooney Ranger with the O-360 Lycoming, and can't say a bad thing about it. Probably the main cost benefit is that the overhaul cost of a 4 cylinder should be less than a 6 cylinder (Although Lycomings cost more to overhaul than Continentals, so it may be pretty close to a wash). Also, the overhaul cost of a Continental IO-360 is probably the same as an O-470, so it makes sense just to go for more engine, all else being the same. I'm pretty convinced that my Bearhawk will be IO-470 powered. I checked at a local salvage yard run by a local icon, J.W. Duff. He's been on the north end of the former Denver Stapleton airport since the 1950's. I asked him about price/availability/condition of a used but serviceable IO-470. I'd like an IO-470 (D,L,U,V,LO or VO model). He estimated that a reasonable used one would have around 1000 SMOH opr more (TBO is 1500). His opinion is that the only reason a real low time engine was likely available is if it had had a prop strike. His estimate is that a decent IO 470 D would run in the range of $5500-$6500. You can get a few hundred hours flying time behind this kind of engine, but of course there are no guarantees. By the way, the D/U/V/VO are C-310 engines and the L/LO are Baron engines. A lot of these became available when the owners opted for Colemill conversions. An IO-470 J from a Debonair is less desirable, as it is the straight valve model and only put! s out 225 hp. The others are angle valve and put out 260 hp at 2625 RPM. I'm currently flying a C-310 with a pair of IO-470 V's. They are the original 1966 engines and both were first overhauled at 1500 hours, and now are high time, with about 1350 SMOH. At my last annual, I had two jugs with low compression, so had them pulled and repaired. I haven't experienced any cracked cylinders, but that is certainly something to take care with. I don't chop the power for descents. Rather, I just plan my descents well in advance and point the nose down. I milk off a teeny bit of MP at a time and keep the CHT at or above 300. I used the same technique with the Mooney, which always flirted with the bottom of the CHT green arc during descent. Both are hard to slow down and bring down at the same time. With the Bearhawk, it will be easier to keep the power up and add more drag (flaps) to help with descent and still keep the jugs warm, but the same principle applies. Squeeze off the MP slowly. Don't chop it and drop it like a Skyhawk trainer. One real benefit you will have is that you will be the primary pilot, and probably in the airplane when anyone else is flying. More consistent operation will help cylinder condition. I have a friend with his C-182 on leaseback and he has had constant cylinder problems. He now needs to stockpile a couple so they can be swapped out during 100 hour inspections to keep it flying. I'm still trying to convince him to forget the leaseback, sell the 182 and buy a 180, as backcountry flying is his real love. Anyway, I'm pretty convinced that I'll be installing an IO-470. I'm also a long way from needing to get one, but like to do the research. Maybe we could go in together and find a salvage twin and each use one engine? See you at Oshkosh. Brian Cox, #478 +++ #8890 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: RE: Continental engine I am not sure I have passed this along to the group, but there is a company that owns the rights to the Continental Packette engine...that's the GPU engine converted for used in a lot of airboats and some aircraft. The company is called Ducarra Aviation, a sister company to D&G Supply. Not only does Ducarra carry parts for the Packette, but also supplies parts for the 0-470 Continental at somewhat lower prices than from Continental. One version of the Packette is essentially the same as the 0-470 in many ways and some parts are interchangeable. Continental just about denies any knowledge of the Packette engine, but they did design and build it. Ducarra does overhauls, 0-470 and Packette, and can supply complete engines. http://www.dgsupply.com/Ducarra.html Bruce A. Frank +++ #8892 From: "rmb336" Subject: Re:Continental Engines I had the understanding that the Lyc. IO-360 was the most efficient engine that Lycoming made. Any truth to this? Richard Bjorn +++ #8893 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Re:Continental Engines I don't know what your definition of efficient is, but I think it's a slug becaue it is 43 pounds heavier than a 180 and I dont think the extra 20 horses is worth the weight. It's only advantage is the constant speed prop, but some variations of 180's can swing a constant speed too. Bear in mind I have thousands of hours following the IO-360 around and I'd much rather have a 540 or a 360, even though my particular engine is as smooth as a six-cylinder. In the four-cylinder engines, the old 0-360 is impossible to beat. i feel the same way about the 540's. bd. +++ #8895 From: "rmb336" Subject: Re: Lyc. IO-360 I believe that I read an article quite a few years ago about this particular engine having the best fuel burn per HP per lb. It's been a long time since I read that article, so I would have to go back and try to find that magazine again. The experience of following that engine around for a few thousand hours would/should be a pretty good indicator of what it is actually like. This is the "truth" I was asking about. Richard Bjorn #336 +++ #8896 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: Re:IO-360 Lyc The O-360 A1A and A1D installed in Mooneys did have constant speed prop. I really enjoyed it in the M20C Ranger. Also, the carbureted version didn't suffer any dreaded hot start problems under the tight cowl like the injected version. Brian Cox, #478 +++ #8897 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Re:IO-360 Lyc Actually, although I bad mouth the IO-360 every chance I get, it's always been a good starting engine, hot or cold. When I say hot start, I mean "hot." Engine just spent an hour doing hard akro, it's 113 degrees outside and I ask it to start again. And it always has. Only heartburn has been the Shower of Sparks that likes to die periodically. I'm on my third one. bd +++ #8899 From: TC4X@A... Subject: Re: Re:IO-360 Lyc Well you can always installone of these www.turbinedesign.com. Guaranteed to give a Helio or a Maule a run for its money on the front of a Bearhawk. Terry Selling everything including the kitchen sink to build a Bearhawk. Anyone want a Clip Tcraft or a PA 22?? +++ #8902 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: Maule and Helio If getting there rapidly is important, I can think of several airplanes that would do it at much lower operating costs...as we all know, high speed is not a strong point of the Bearhawk, but we don't care...if we did, we'd probably be building something with a "*air" name. I'm always amused by the number of people who always want to put a bigger engine in any airplane, regardless of how well matched the airframe is to the original engine. The same things always happen: 1. Fuel consumption goes way up 2. Climb rate goes way up 3. Cruise/Top Speed goes up (very little--it's that V^3 thing again) 4. Weight goes up (useful load goes down) 5. Range goes down There are ways to mitigate #1 and #5 at the expense of #3, but these folks rarely seem interested in paying for a bigger engine to go the same speed. Russ "stirrin' the pot again" Erb +++ #8903 From: "t18cox" Subject: Re:Continental Engines A few observations about suitable engines. The IO-360 Cont (210hp)is extremely smooth, but we find parts to be expensive. A Maule I help maintain has gone through 4 cylinders in 950 hrs. Poor overhaul? I'm not sure. The parallel valve, carbureted Lycoming engines make the most power for the weight and are nearly bullet proof. The lightest O-540s weigh about 360 the lightest O-470s weigh 400+. The O-470 is slightly shorter which will help a little as far as the extra weight is concerned. For Lycoming and Cont the IO engines are heavier and the angle valve engines are notably heavier. If you look at proto II weight and CG data a heavier engine installation is going to require the battery well back in the fuselage and/or some ballast. Most of us will probably not run a composite prop and that will hurt on weight/cg compared to Bob. I seem to remember at one point Bob said the engine weight should be 400 or less. Just my thoughts. Bill Cox #303 +++ #8904 From: TC4X@A... Subject: Re: Maule and Helio Just because the fuel consumption goes up and the rate of climb, does not always mean the weight goes up and the usefull load goes down. The Allison 250 turbine weights 205 #s and produces a takeodff horsepower of 450. Maule installed them on their planes with success. At 55% power it will burn about 22GPH, For the difference in engine weight, you can have room for more fuel.....somewhere. Just a thought. If I had the resources to do something like that, I would build an AeroComp 8 with 6 place configuration, I have a freind with one and it is incredible. He made it from Miami to Savannah in 1.6 hours. Granted, he paid the price in operating costs. A 0-540 is not cheap to run either. When I build mine it will probably be Lycoming powered 0-360, However, the O-470 parts are available cheaper and it is a viable option, Terry +++ #8905 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Maule and Helio In my book, big motors are for climb performance, period. Speed is a by product. Out here I don't care how fas an airplane is (within reason), but I sure do want it to be able to out climb the topography in August. With a big motor, I can always do a Bob, and bring it back, but with a little motor, no matter how hard I push the throttle, what I've got is what I've got. bd +++ #8908 From: Bob Romanko Subject: Parts Cost Differences? (Was: Continental Engines) What parts, specifically, are more expensive on the Continentals? Not wanting to stir controversy, but just looking at cylinders alone I have yet to find a website anywhere with pricing of Lycoming O360 cylinders LESS than the cost of Continental GO300 jugs. That's new OR rebuilt. Now, if you want to build a case that you're going to be replacing continental jugs more often, that's an engine of a different color. From the standpoint of the cost of the parts, I'm seeing it the other way on quite a few assemblies. Sure, there are lots more parts to an engine than just the jugs, but those are the one's most frequently replaced that are big-ticket items. Nobody touches jugs in their shops anymore it seems. With the price of labor, I can see why everyone's sending their jugs off now for rebuild or exchange. All that time I spent learning to measure springs, grind valves, lap valves and seats, press valve guides, hone bores, etc...all seems like a waste of time. Ahhhh...the good 'ol days.... Planter "Pass the Prussian Blue" Bob +++ #8909 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Parts Cost Differences? (Was: Continental Engines) I don't know that either engine has a lower parts cost. My only experience is that we replace parts, usually jugs, on Continentals more often on Lycomings. In fact, on my first Lyc rebuild, which was right on TBO, the factory jugs on my first-run engine were so close that Mattituck just honed 'em and stuck 'em back on. In something like 4,000 hours of IO-360 operation, whicn is entirely touch and goes or akro, I've not once cracked a jug or had to redo any part of the top end. Fortunately, however, with the exception of the wrist-pin scare, all of the serious AD's and service bulletins have managed to miss me. I DID, however, have a propeller hub that featured a 270 degree crack through the shank groove that was about to present me with an "interesting" emergency. I guess my primary bitch about IO-360's is I've never had one in an airplane that had either a dry firewall or clean belly and I hate oily airplanes, (unless they have a round motor, and that's just part of the package). bd +++ #8924 From: "gjvf" Subject: Re: Continental engine I got the Sky Ranch Engineering Manual for Xmas and it's full of good advice on how to operate your engine to maximize life and stuff that normally goes wrong with engines both TCM and Lyc. One thing I picked up about the O-470 is that the alternator (generator) is not driven by a belt as on the Lyc. It's dirven from a gear that's fastened directly to an internal flange on the crankshaft. In a sudden stop the inertia in the alternator can be enough to crack that flange. Even though the prop flange shows no bending, the crank can be cracked internally. Be careful on sudden stop engines! Jim Van Fossen #411 Grafton, OH +++ #8936 From: "kgward2000" Subject: Rover Bearhawk Russ - Thanks for the offer. Tim posted some pictures Dec. 6,7&8 The radiators,headers and baffeling are not shown in these pictures.This is a good thing because when they are installed I don't know if the light from the camera flash can penetrate to the actual motor. Wow is it cramped. Everything in the motor compartment will be serviceable but we now know the reason service proceedure manuals are written. Tim's picture of the lower cowl shows the oil cooler houseing (yellow) , we have relocated the oil cooler within the cowling with appropriate ducting and this got rid of the ugly yellow bulge. We will definately take lots of pictures during reassembly and get them posted to this site. A lot of the things we are doing with our firewall forward package are definately "experimental". While doing our research for this project, and the 20 ft. hovercraft I'm building, we have been amazed by the number of experts in the auto- conversion field. We have also discovered that very few systems have serious hr's logged on them and many are being revised and upgraded regularly. I suspect we will find the same on this project and we hope to post what worked and what didn't, for other builders who choose the auto- conversion path. ken +++ #8937 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Rover Bearhawk You'd be amazed at how many people have trouble cooling. Many people contact me wanting ideas about how to set up their radiator and air ducting for their Ford V-6. I tell them, "this is what has worked in your application," and many times I send them pages from the newsletter showing descriptions and pictures. Three months later they call me back telling me they can't cool; oil temps too high; coolant pressure is too high...ad infinitum. When I ask a few questions I get, "No, I didn't do it that way, I had my own ideas." My suggestion is always to set things up as has been shown to work so that you have a baseline. If they have ideas that they think offer advantages, after the project is flying and all the coolant system kinks are worked out THEN try something different (or better?). Bruce A. Frank +++ #8941 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: Re: Continental engine > One thing I picked up about the O-470 is that the alternator > (generator) is not driven by a belt as on the Lyc. It's > dirven from a gear that's fastened directly to an internal > flange on the crankshaft. I think it depends on which Continental. The IO-470, at least the models I am familiar with, use a belt driven alternator, or generator in the case of My IO-470 V engines. I'm not positive, but think that the O-470 also uses belt drive. I'm not sure about other Continental models. Brian Cox, #478 +++ #8942 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Cont. vs. Lyc. I was following the thread last week regarding Cont vs Lyc parts prices. I thoroughly researched this on the 4 cylinder side (O-200 vs O-235) and came to a very definitive answer. Lycomings are several time more expensive on parts than Continentals. Keep in mind that this was done about 4 years ago but at that time, a new Cont crank was $1200 USD. A new O-235 crank was, gulp, $4300 USD! Factory new jugs for the O-200 were around $650 USD (Melinemum rebuilts were $690 USD). Lycoming jugs were $1150 USD. The cam, lifters, valves, seals, bearings, etc were all much more expensive on the O-235 than the O-200. However, it is worth noting that my O-235 had a TBO of 2000 hours and the O-200 was only 1800. In the end, I bought a new Frank that was even less expensive than the Continental The TBO is listed at 1500 hours, but at a cost of less than half that of the new Lyc. with 2400 TBO, $/hour is still cheaper on the Frank (assuming that both make it to TBO. The other advantages of the Frank over the Cont and Lyc engines make it far more appealing to me. I guess I'll find out for sure when I've run it for 10 years or so ;-) Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #8948 From: "gjvf" Subject: Re: Continental engine You're absolutely correct, I went back and read the section on prop strikes and it was the IO-550 that has the gear driven alternator. He does say that TCM cranks are more prone to cracking without bending because the crank is nitride hardened. Jim Van Fossen #411 Grafton, OH +++ #8979 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Franklin Engines, (fwd) Here's a little info on the 220 hp Franks, for anyone interested.... Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) From: Jean Diane Chevalier To: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Franklin Engines, Thanks for the informations concerning the Franklin engines and also for their website this is of great value to me for further needs. Now, the conversion on my 172G was made in Montreal back in the 70's when Franklin engines were in Rochester NY. The first engine in it went up to 2000 hrs without any top overhauled or maintenance as far as the valves etc etc.... the second Franklin engine in it was installed about 4 years ago that I got from a Mr Pat in New Jersey who went out of bussiness since then (no way to get in touch with him anymore, maybe dead) Back then he was importing these engine from Poland direct and I was able to get one from him after a long waiting period. This second engine has now a little over 250 hrs without any trouble except I had to change the seal on the crank a few months ago, beside that it's a perfect engine. About the fuel consumtion it's 10 gallons per hour. Much satisfied of it. If by any chances you know someone interested in buying the aircraft, it's for sale on account of my age. It will be advertised in Trade-a-Plane next week. For your info the registration is C-FUDC and it is based in Drummondville Que. Thanks again for the information, it was nice to hear from you. John Chevalier >>> 4sep02 #9154-11297 +++ #9307 From: Bob Romanko Subject: RE: rebuilding certified engine for use in experimental My thoughts on rebuilding your own engine are unless you have someone who is well-versed to help you through it locally, I'd go ahead and send my core to Bob Barrows and let him do it. That's assuming that you're at least located on the continent of North America. Yellow tagged parts are normally okay if you know the source VERY well. One man's junk is another man's treasure, one man's junk MAY BE another man's yellow tag. You can't "eyeball" a critical engine part. Aluminum parts such as pistons, cases, etc. need to be inspected with Zyglo (dye), ferrous parts like the rods, crankshaft, and camshaft need to be inspected with magnaflux. Parts also need to be checked to ensure they are within dimensional tolerances, so you'll need a good set of ten-thousands micrometers, a granite surface block, a few dial indicators, depth gauges, v-blocks, etc. Unless you have an inspection shop laying around (or have ready access to one, along with someone who knows how to use all that stuff), I'd say you're better off buying parts from a good outfit who has done all of that. Even then, I'd verify everything I stuck into my engine even IF I purchased from a reputable shop. "Monday" parts do exist. Even the best mechanics and techs can have a bad day in the shop and miss a step. Twenty years ago I did a complete rebuild on an O540, and even earned my A&P ticket doing it. The thing held oil pressure, had great compression, and purred like a kitten. Would I do it again unsupervised? No way, even though the FAA say's I have a card in my wallet with a "P" on it. My "A" is a lot stronger than my "P", and I tend to think the engine is sort of a critical flight component. That's not to say I wouldn't rebuild my own engine today, but ONLY if I had someone locally with gobs of CURRENT experience. I may be coming off as a bit extreme, or overly cautious. Perhaps I am. Of course, your engine is "experimental", but when it comes to keeping the prop turning, that's one "experiment" you want to succeed. Since my last rebuild in 1980 there have been some ADs on the O-540 that I probably don't know about. Sure, some ADs seem frivolous, but by and large they exist for a very good reason. To sum it up. If you want to do your own OH, that's fine. Go for it, but do so as long as you have a good mentor who can help you through it. For your parts, know the source, and take all necessary precautions before putting something in your engine. There are bad new parts out there, and bad yellow tagged parts as well. The part doesn't know whether it's going into a certified engine or not. Each part is an individual, and has to stand on its own merit, regardless of what others say its integrity is. As mechanics, we have the ultimate responsibility to make sure that every part that goes in is one that we would be comfortable flying behind 500 hours from now. +++ #9320 From: "fly_it_slow" "Joa" Subject: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experimenta l This is good advice, and I appreciate it, but it doesn't answer the questions I asked. What alternate sources are there for parts (that may be just as good of quality), what can I expect for a total rebuild cost if I do everything myself, and what books or videos are there that explain the process in detail? FWIW I have the skills and equipment available that you mentioned (as well as sources for magnaflux and FPI). Thanks folks! +++ #9321 From: Bob Romanko Subject: RE: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experim ental Okay...to answer your question more specifically... I did a search at http://www.google.com using the words "Lycoming engine parts" and came up with dozens of folks all over the U.S. who sell Lycoming parts. What I'd do if I were in your position is give some of these sites a look and call the ones who have a good, professional site with decent inventory and pricing. I'd ask them for references, then call those people. I don't know where you're located, but if you're able to find one nearby it may be worth a visit. You'll find everything on the web from rebuilders who sell parts to salvage yards who don't rebuild, and will sell you anything. The costs of an overhaul "parts only" is impossible to guess without determining first, the level you want the parts to spec, and second, what the engine needs. If you end up having to rebuild or replace a slew of accessories it doesn't take long for costs to rise, even in an experimental rebuild. I hate to sound like I'm skirting your question, but the answer just isn't out there. Each engine's going to be different, and every overhauler in the experimental world has to make his own judgment call on what is going to be replaced with new, replaced with used, overhauled, etc... However.... I DID find a VERY good website of a gentleman with a Continental O-470-K and his "do it yourself" overhaul experience. He includes his decision process, tools he required, skills involved, and a detailed spreadsheet. His total overhaul, on a certified engine, was o$17,607. Only $800 of that was spent on 20 hours of "IA Consulting". The website he wrote is very comprehensive, and I recommend it to anyone thinking of overhauling an engine themselves: http://www.russellw.com/planes/cruisemaster/engine_change/default.htm Realize that this Joe replaced with quite a few new parts. It's great you have access to inspection equipment. Still, do you have everything you need to hone an aircraft cylinder, grind valves, etc? There's a BIG reason why most overhauls, even the smaller guys, send their cylinders out now. In the long run, I'd say send out your cylinders to a professional shop. There is just too much involved in doing the job properly to invest in the tooling for a one-time rebuild on only six jugs. As far as videos go, here's one that covers the 4-cylinder Lycoming that will be a great help: http://www.buildersbooks.com/cleaveland/engine_overhaul_videos.htm Cleaveland tools also has http://www.buildersbooks.com/cleaveland/lycoming_overhaul.htm if you want a genuine Lycoming overhaul manual. Between the video and the manual you should have enough info to do the overhaul yourself. I still believe that you should try your best to identify someone who has experience overhauling aircraft recips to help you out. Some things are difficult to convey with text and photographs.. Hopefully the video will fill any gaps the manual may have. My gut feel cost-wise is if you can do the overhaul yourself for under $8,000 total you made out well in the deal. Frankly, I'd pick up the phone and give Bob Barrows a call and get a quote from him before proceeding. Regardless, whether experimental or certified, any field overhaul is highly subjective. I trust Bob Barrows' judgment 100%, and that's why I'd go with him if the funds permitted. +++ #9327 From: "Rod Smith" Subject: Re: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experim ental I believe you had also asked about other parts sources besides Lycoming. If you have to replace some parts with new, both Superior and ECI have a very good reputation and are quite a bit cheaper than Lycoming. Monty Barrett who builds aerobatic engines says he has to send one out of three new lycoming cylinders back to lycoming and recommends ECI instead. +++ #9328 From: Bob Romanko Subject: RE: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experim ental I agree with Rod regarding NEW cylinders. Although I'm not actively rebuilding, I don't know of anyone around these here parts who is buying cylinders from Textron or Teledyne for that matter. One sure fire way to increase the value of an engine is to OH it with Superior jugs. By the way, if you have the capability and skills to do your own blueprinting you'll save gobs of dough. Good move. Just be sure to inspect before AND after machining. Sure, it's being anal retentive, but if you have the means to do so as you said you do it would be worth the extra time. I've heard of machined cranks taking a walk on the wild side after the process. Hardly ever happens, but it can. +++ #9329 From: Catherine Webb "Ron Webb" Subject: Re: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experim ental It is possible to go with other than Lycoming parts and gain a great deal in some areas. As an example, starters and alternators. A company called Sky-tek sells certified starters and alternators based on auto engine equivilents. Their starter will spin the prop at a rate much faster than the certificated version, while weighing half as much, and drawing less current. A company called "Air tek" will sell you a standard chevy small block starter with a bracket that makes it fit. This is not certificated but costs $200 instead of $500 for the Sky tek. I just installed one of these in a high compression (10:1 pistons) Lyc IO-360. I can now turn the engine over fast - even without pre-heat -at temperatures below where I would dare actually start it (below about 20F, the bearings shrink to the point of having no clearance.) Being able to start this thing cold if I have to is worth $200 any day! +++ #9330 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experim ental As an example, starters and alternators. A company called Sky-tek sells certified starters and alternators based on auto engine equivilents. Their starter will spin the prop at a rate much faster than the certificated version, while weighing half as much, and drawing less current. Hi, At Oshkosh last year, I made the rounds to a lot of suppliers. I specifically visited Sky Tek to ask about their starters, as the ones on my plane are getting a bit tired. There were two reps in the booth, and I was the only customer. Unfortunately, one of them opened with a remark to me that was so rude I was flabbergasted. Looks like they have a really good product, but I'll be looking elsewhere. Does anyone have any experience with the similar starters from Lamar? +++ #9331 From: "Montee, Dan L." Subject: RE: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experim ental These starter appear to be the same gear reduction Nippon starters you will find on the majority of race cars. GM used to call them super starters or some such name. They are terrific units. In the 80's I bought stock direct drive starters literally by the case for the race car. My crew could change one on the starting grid between the 5 minute warning and the start of the race. We ran the original Nippon for 4 years. If you have the machining capability all you need is an adapter for your application. I don't have experience with Lycoming or Continentals but from what I've seen the Lycoming wouldn't be a problem. I've been reading a little on the C 470's and I'm not sure how you would adapt it to all that monkey motion Continental uses. I've thought there should be some weight savings opportunity if you could replace the whole system. I kept the Nippon part# in the top of my tool box for years. I'll check when I get to the shop tonight and if I have it I'll post it here. If I don't, and your wife drives an old Civic your half way home. +++ #9332 From: Catherine Webb "Ron Webb" Subject: Re: RE: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experimental You are correct. The Sky tec is the nippon design with a new case. The Air tech is a chevy starter with the bracket you mentioned. A plate steel welded bracket - really simple. Be careful though. The Lyc uses two possible tooth pitches on the flywheel - the "course pitch" is 122 tpm (I think) and the auto unit that matches that is from most any japanese car. The "fine pitch" is 149 TPI, and it matches a Chevy. There are really good 3+ horsepower geared "super starters" available on Ebay and elsewhere for $135 or so. +++ #9338 From: "fly_it_slow" "Joa" Subject: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experimental Yaa, now we're talking. This is exactly the kind of good info I was hoping for. You know what would be *really* trick... that's if someone would come up with an O-540 "spreadsheet" with basically all of the replacable/rebuildable components on the engine and then places that sell them and the price. At the bottom include all the addresses and maybe off to the side include comments for folks to make based on their personal experience. Bet ya you would have all kinds of folks thanking you up, down, and sideways for all this info in one place and readily accessible. Trade-A-Plane has all sorts of advertisers but it's hard to wade through it all and come up with a coherent list of the options available. Just a thought. +++ #9340 From: "Corky Scott" charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 727 > I DID find a VERY good website of a gentleman with a Continental > O-470-K and his "do it yourself" overhaul experience. Lordy. I'm rebuilding my engine of choice and am reasonably certain that it will cost about $5,000 total for everything. When it's done it will be a blueprinted zero time engine. This would include new forged pistons, new carb and new PSRU. But then, it isn't a Lycoming or Continental. Actually I think it will cost less than the above, but I haven't bought the radiator so I'm not sure of all the costs. +++ #9343 From: Tim Subject: Re: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experim ental Friend has installed a 'Sky-tek' in his rocket....Previous to this he put a B&C in his M1...Bottom line is the Sky Tek is less exspensive...Maybe why Van's Aircraft (RV's) now only carries the Skytek starter in their Catalog... +++ #9344 From: "fly_it_slow" "Joa" Subject: O-540 donors For you aircraft buffs... what common planes would be good donors for the O-540-A engine? Particularily planes that have STCs for larger (or fuel injected) engines that owners may be swapping out their high time O-540-A for the newer engines? Correct me if I'm wrong but the )-540-A seems to offer the best power to weight ratio of these engines. Are there any known problems with this model? Model Comp. Ratio HP RPM Weight O-540-B 7.20:1 235 2575 372 O-540-J 8.50:1 235 2400 356 O-540-L 8.50:1 235 2400 369 O-540-A 8.50:1 250 2575 356 O-540-E 8.50:1 260 2700 375 Probably not too soon to start looking for an engine and if I know the planes that these commonly are found on then maybe can find a high time engine that is being upgraded. +++ #9345 From: "Terry" TC4X@...> Subject: Re: O-540 donors 0-540-A1A Rhein Flugzeugbau ( Don't ask me!), 2 sixth order counterweights. 0-540-A1A5 PiperComanche, Helio H-250, Same as -A1A but one fifth and one sixth order counterweights 0-540-A1B5 Piper Aztec, Same as -A1A5 except for short prop Gov. studs and 2 impulse mags 0-540 A1C5 Piper Comanche,Same as -A1A5 except 2 impulse mags 0-540-A1D Found Bros FBA-2C, Dornier DO-28-B1, Same as -A1B5 except for 2 sixth order counterweights and retard breaker mags 0-540-A1D5 Piper Comanche. Aztec, Military Aztec(U-11A), Dornier DO-28, Same as-A1B5 except retard breaker mags 0-540-A2B Aero Commander 500,Mid States Mfg. Twin Courier H-500,U-5, 0-540-A1A with short prop gov studs and prop locating bushing, relocate 60 degree counterclockwise 0-540-A3D5 Navy Aztec PA 23-250, Special Navy Aztec same as -A1D5 except for provision for prop de-ice and chrome barrels, 24 volt system std. The following I have info on but no airframe info 0-540-A4A5, Same as -A1A5 but with more effective counterweights for use with Hartzell"compact" prop 0-540-A4B5, Same as -A1B5 but with more effective counterweights for use with Hartzell"compact" prop 0-540-A4C5, Same as -A1C5 but with more effective counterweights for use with Hartzell"compact" prop 0-540-A4D5, Same as -A1D5 but with more effective counterweights for use with Hartzell"compact" prop Also, A Pawnee Engine is an 0-540-G1A5 rated at 260@2700. It is the same as an -A4D5 except for higher speed and rating, stiffer crankshaft and -A1D5 counterweights. 0-540-E4A5, Piper Comanche 260, Sai-Marchetti SF-250 and -208, Same as -A4D5 except higher speed and rating Info taken from Lycoming SSP 397 +++ #9346 From: "rodsmith52" "Rod Smith" Subject: Re: O-540 donors Better double check the weight on the O-540-A. My info shows it at 381 pounds. The only reference I've ever seen to an O-540 at 356 pounds is the J model. Some of the ways they lowered the weight on that are prop flange with lightening holes, low compression piston pins with high compression pistons(therefore probably the 2400rpm limit) and the accursed bendix dual magneto. I think it would make a great candidate for the Bearhawk if you put the high compression piston pins back in, replace the dual mag with a single mag and electronic ignition. Then run it at 2700rpm and get 260hp out of it. Weights of the engines even with the same dash letter will vary depending on whether they are narrow deck or the few pounds heavier wide deck. Most rebuilders say the narrow deck is just as good once a few mods are made to the case. +++ #9358 From: "stevenestergreen" "Steven" Subject: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experimental Lycoming publishes overhaul manuals for all models of its engines. If the engine model is no longer in production, it may be difficult to find one. Manuals for many models are often available on eBay. You can also usually find the "Sky Ranch Engineering" manual on eBay, which has good information on aircraft engines in general. If it's not on eBay this week, do a web search for "Sky Ranch", I know they have a website. I'm not an A&P, and don't know information is on a "yellow tag". Does it include the serial number of the engine that the part came out of and the number of operating hours the part was in use? Just because a part is still dimensionally correct doesn't mean it hasn't been overstressed, fatigued, or heat damaged. And while common measuring tools will help you verify diameters - inside and outside - etc. they won't be any help measuring things like the linearity of the crankshaft journals and bearing saddles, perpendicularity of the pin bores to the piston OD, concentricity of the valve faces and stems, etc. So, I echo Planter Bob's recommendation to double-check everything. Sorry, I don't have any experience with aftermarket aircraft replacement parts, either. Good luck in your search for info. +++ #9360 From: "Terry" TC4X@... Subject: Re: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experimental Lycoming publishes One Manual to cover all direct drive engines and and individual parts manuals. +++ #9368 From: "t18cox" "Bill Cox" Subject: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experimental > What is the address or phone number for this manual? One source is Aircraft Spruce, look on page 548 of their red catalog. +++ #9395 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experim ental The site is: http://www.dgsupply.com/Ducarra.html They are a sister company to: http://www.dgsupply.com/#top Both are sources for usually lower priced engine parts. +++ #9396 From: "fly_it_slow" "Joa" Subject: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experim ental So what's the catch? If these "surplus" engines have all the same part numbers as the certified ac engines except for the crank (which is thicker and not hollow, right?) then why couldn't they be made into a fairly standard AC engine with some machining? Must be some catch or someone would already be doing it :) +++ #9397 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Re: rebuilding certified engine for use in experim ental There are people doing it. The engine is heavy due to a lot of cast parts where aviation engines use sheet metal stampings. I have one that I will eventually do something with that is equivilant to the 0-470, but it weights about 450 pounds. +++ #9406 From: "Corky Scott" charles.k.scott@d...> Subject: Re: Digest Number 733 > The bad news is that it costs enough to outfit a fleet of RVs with > 13B's..... I'm constantly surprised by how much seemingly ordinary people are willing to pay for an engine. Paying $18,000 for a rebuilt engine seems about average. And then you have to put up with a lot of interesting performance and starting parameters that make life more complicated. It just never stops. "Sport Aviation" ran an article last year about a guy who waited for a long time to find an engine for his RV-4 and kept his eye's on the trade magazines and his ear to the ground looking for a good used engine. He finally found what he was looking for and is pleased to have spent only about $7,500 for a relatively high time engine, as I recall. I'm glad that more and more people are turning to auto engine conversions, if for no other reason than to increase the numbers in the database for comparison purposes. Putting together a zero time auto conversion is a lot of work and it's all critical. People building their airframe may be perfectly competent to do that but lack the skills necessary to build and install the engine - which would include seatpants engineering of the cooling system. It would be nice if there were a bible that accurately described the process, giving such facts as proper radiator size and performance, installation location, plumbing necessities and materials needed. But I think it would be pretty enormous and difficult to edit considering the number of choices for engines and the number of different PSRU's that could be used with them. I do have all or most of that information... somewhere. It's been accumulated over the years and squirrelled away either electronically or on paper. There was a great article on exhaust augmentation to assist cooling in the latest "Contact!" magazine which had some really good information, until you find out that this is a proposed installation, not the real thing. Like so many other "installations" in auto conversions the bottom line was: "This should work." And it should, but real life has a way of sometimes changing the assumptions so that what "should have worked", didn't. +++ #9435 From: "fly_it_slow" "Joa" Subject: O-470 GPU I've been digging into this engine a little more and it sounds pretty attractive. Today I found out that most of these engines are sold at auctions and that many times there are military "spares" that are basically new in the crate and just have "test time" on them. These engines aren't even broken in yet. Another thing I found was that for airboat (and of course aircraft) applications it's recommended to have the crank heat treated. If the crank had to be machined anyway (to lighten) then this would be done after heat treating. Supposedly the Navy is having a big auction this spring/summer somewhere on the E coast at a big Navy yard where a bunch of their ships are switching to a "central" power unit (like the nuke ships have??) and they will be auctioning all their GPUs including the O- 470s. Apparently these are usually bought up by re-sellers for between $600 and $1000 each and there are usually quite a few "test time" engines. The re-sellers usually get about $2700 for these. Anybody been to or heard of such auctions or know the "one" I'm referring to? Also the pistons apparently come in three configurations... dished (GPU), flat (aircraft), and dome (what do they use this for???). The pistons aren't much $$ so the dished ones could be swapped for the flat ones I would suppose. Anyway, good info and something to think about. Would be cool if someone would buy up about a dozen of these "test time" engines and then rebuild them to "BH specs" and sell them for a decent price. If all dozen were done at one time the machining wouldn't be too bad since you would save on setup and could also batch the heat treating, etc. +++ #9437 From: Jimmy Mathis Subject: Re: O-470 GPU I've got one and when I get a chance, I'll dig up some phone numbers for you that will give you some options. I plan to (hope to) use this engine for my BH, but might start with a used four cylinder to test fly it. +++ #9441 From: "Corky Scott" charles.k.scott@d...> Subject: Re: Digest Number 736 > I've been digging into this engine a little more and it sounds pretty > attractive. Today I found out that most of these engines are sold at > auctions and that many times there are military "spares" that are > basically new in the crate and just have "test time" on them. These > engines aren't even broken in yet. When I looked into these engines, I discovered that they would require a LOT of modification to become air worthy. At least the ones I looked at had the following: An overhead manifold, which would have to be replaced, single plug heads, which would have to be replaced, a single magneto which might or might not require modification of the accessory drive to run two. So if you want duel plugs, you'll need to replace all the cylinderheads and then find a proper intake manifold and carburator. It sounded like so much work and money to me that I gave up. Of course, if you don't mind having the carburator on top of the engine and don't mind single plug heads than it's not a problem. +++ #9444 From: "Greco, Bob" Subject: RE: O-470 GPU I have an 0-470 GPU engine that I bought surplus from the military. When I bought it was still in the sealed bag and had never been started since it was overhauled for the Air Force by a private contractor in Florida (Cost the Air Force $14648.30-All of the paperwork was in the bag with the engine). I can still read the ink stamped part numbers on the tops of the pistons I removed the steel baffles and most of the heavy castings other parts that are not needed for aircraft. I added a Chevy automatic transmission flywheel and ring gear and a airboat propeller adapter that has a belt groove. I made a plate for the front face that picks up the studs where the engine was mounted to the flywheel cover. This plate has legs similar to the aircraft front legs so I can bed mount it using aircraft shockmounts. It also provides mounting for the alternator and starter. I also made rear legs that pick up on the side of the crankcase just like the ones on the aircraft. I used an Toyota starter and alternator. The propeller adapter has a bolt pattern that matches a Lycoming propeller. I am using the stainless steel exhaust that came with the engine and added a Grumman tiger muffler so I can have cabin heat. I replaced the carburetor with a horizontal aircraft carb. To date I have not done anything with the magneto or cylinder heads but plan on adding a second magneto in the extra hole in the accessory case. To do this will require adding two studs to the boss on the back of the crankcase and drilling a hole to connect with the oil passage in the crankcase. Then I will be able to add the magneto gear support and the magneto. The cylinder heads are similar to early Continental E-185 heads except for the lack of the second spark plug hole so I will take them to an aircraft engine overhaul shop and have the machining done. The quote I was given is $25.00 per head. The bolt pattern on the oil sump is similar to the pattern on some of the early Continental aircraft engines so I am looking for an aircraft sheetmetal sump that will fit. The current engine weight is 422 pounds and it will probably be about that when it is finished because the added magneto will be offset by the sheet metal oil sump. This is almost identical to the aircraft 0-470 weight and the aircraft engine weight does not include the alternator or exhaust system. By doing all the work myself on a drill press and a bandsaw, buying the engine, carburetor, magneto, alternator, starter, propeller adapter and muffler, and paying for the modification to the cylinder heads, I will have around $2800.00 in the engine when it is ready to install on the airframe. Now for the big questions???? Have I overlooked anything that should be done to use it in an Airplane and does anyone have any experience using one of these in an Airplane???? It was so easy to make the changes yet I have never heard of one being used so am concerned that there is something that I have missed. Help!!! Bob Greco +++ #9446 From: "mapratherid" "Matt" Subject: RE: O-470 GPU On an engine that only came with one mag, you might consider adding an electronic ignition like Klaus Sauvier from Lightspeed Engineering sells - instead of adding another mag. They can be triggered from the crank, feature no moving parts, allow automotive spark plugs (cheaper and lower profile), and provide ignition advance based on manifold pressure - producing more horsepower, or better fuel economy (up to 20% better) esp at altitude. One of the systems goes for about $1000, which is about 2x the cost of a new mag, but at least it won't wear out in 400 hours. http://www.lightspeedengineering.com +++ #9453 From: "David G. Moore" Subject: 0-540 GPU Conversion Manuals A man named Don Pridham has written manuals about converting GPU to aircraft use. He list everything from a 0-145 to the 0-540. I have one of his manuals on the 0-290, and it is step by step and looks like it was written by a mechanic with a well stocked machine shop. The address I have is pretty old November 1997: Don Pridham 411 Sunshine Ave. Sequim, Washinton 98382 360-683-9165 +++ #9457 From: "fly_it_slow" "Joa" Subject: Re: 0-540 GPU Conversion Manuals I called him, it doesn't cover any of the Continental engines. +++ #9458 From: John Thompson Subject: Fuel consumption for 470 and 540 I'm curious as to what kind of fuel consumption figures the O-470 and O-540 have. I've just read an article in "Custom Planes" where this guy made a chevy 4.3 liter engine for his amphib. He says it consumes 14.5 gallons per hour at full throttle, which is almost 300hp. He made it sound so easy...even though he's a hot rodder, he was persuaded to have a custom aircraft engine shop do it. cost him under 15K for the whole shebang. The article also includes some dyno readings. +++ #9496 From: John Thompson Subject: Chevy 4.3 liter engine article The article about the 4.3 liter engine is in the June 2002 issue of Custom Planes. some excerpts: 288hp at 4500 rpm, Northwest Aero belt reduction unit. Max RPM hp is "just over 300". Cost $14,689.33 Full throttle GPH is 21.5!!! not the 14.5 I orginally posted! includes $7321 for labor. optium performance between 4500 and 5000 rpm Lots of aftermarket parts. Sez they wound up using only the block and timing gear cover from original engine! Saved 60# on the heads alone with the aftermarket parts. From the dyno printout: 145hp at 2873 rpm, 12.69gph 189hp at 3517 rpm, 15.82gph 221hp at 4027rpm, 18.02gph 247.4hp at 4499rpm, 20.36gph 270hp at 4799rpm, 21.47gph. So if you bought the right aftermarket parts, or sent it to a engine builder, you could probably set it up for a peak hp of whatever you felt was right for a bearhawk, at a RPM you feel comfortable with. The article does mention that the builder said "you can have any HP you want, but it goes up in price and in proportion to longitevity" So it would seem that this engine will handle the 4800rpm for peak HP without any fear of grenading for a while at least, since there are so few times when peak HP is needed. +++ #9632 From: "Corky Scott" charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Digest Number 760 > Looking for a good link with info reference Subject: Auto Conversions > > HP Range of 250-300hp V-6 or V-8's aluminum block (or not) with > published weights w/ without PRSU's?....Yada yada Tim, you won't find too many V-6's putting out 250 horsepower. Northwest Aero, whose site is currently under construction, does build several V-8's. John Worden is apparently carrying on in Fred Geschwender's place, producing a number of chain driven PSRU's originally used with big block Ford V-8's. They are now available for Chevy V-8's and some V-6's. Geschwender's original drive was designed for high horsepower applications and was used along with big block Fords to replace aging crop duster powerplants. +++ #9707 From: "fourthwedge" "Dave" Subject: Re: #357 update > How does one contact COOL COAT? Try: www.techlinecoatings.com or call 972-775-1429 in Midlothian, Texas. 200 degrees cooler than uncoated exhaust 3" away from pipe. Sounds like good stuff. Bet it ain't free. +++ #9738 From: "kgward2000" "KEN" Subject: #357 update Bruce the rad we used was made by AFCO www.dragraceafco.com No epoxy really solidly built and reasonably priced.EXtreme care has to be taken when welding not to melt the brazing holding the tubes to the headers. we used the following procedure : Step 1- weld 1" on the top tank. Step 2- weld 1" on the bottom tank. Step 3- have coffee while things cool down. The entire process will take 8 pots of coffee, 28 trips to the john and 4 stiff drinks of canadian whiskey.(to get rid of the coffee shakes ). You are right about MIKES project it does work excellent,he has no problem cooling that 270 hp. v6 ( nitros activated) during climbout. We intended on following the same program BUT!!!. The rover v8 has a tall air box for the fuel injection so we had to lower the motor by 1.5" to fit it under the upper cowling, this lowerd the thrust line 1.5" and was approved by BOB.This put the oilpan outside the lower cowling. No problem, just build a new aluminum oil pan, make it center sump and capable of high angles of attack.Where did all that space go we saw on MIKES project. HIs plane has a much deeper motor compartment and a lower profile carb allowing him to put the rad under the motor.Again a lot of the things we're doing are (experi)mental and we dont want somebody looking at a picture and thinking that would be great for their project when the thing doesnt work worth a damm.Once we know the systems work we will definitely share with everybody.( even crazy people ). MIKE moved up to the caribou region of B.C. Just before he moved he had 700 hrs. on his conversion. I will try and get his phone # and pass it on. +++ #9960 From: "t18cox" "Bill Cox" Subject: Re: Engine torque > has anyone weighed the 0540 or the O470 continental complete with > accesories and prop. I haven't actually weighed my 540, but I do have the Lycoming and Continental published weights. Carburated engines Lycoming 356 to 375 pounds Cont 380 to 414 Injected engines Lycoming 381 to 422 Cont 401 to 433 A compact hub Hartzel will weigh about 60 pounds. I know these engine weights do not include exhaust. I'm not sure which accessories. I believe the lightest engine in these series will be the parallel valve narrow deck Lycoming with a carb. +++ #9961 From: "Ron Webb" Subject: Re: Engine torque You can expect great quantities of engineer level fog to be produced on this one. Just in case they fail to give the SIMPLE answer first... HP=(Torque*RPM)/5252 or Torque=(HP*5252)/RPM So a 260 HP aircraft engine running at 2700 RPM produces (260*5252)/2700=505 ft*lb So torque vs horsepower is not really "apples and oranges", but more like "apples and applesauce". Another important point is that you use a Propeller Speed Reduction Unit. The torque gets multiplied by the reduction ratio. +++ #9964 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Engine torque > But don't we really care about thrust? Of course, you're right about prop effeciency factor, which is different for each prop, but not significantly so, at least not in the narrow number of choices open to us. And therein lies the rub and makes the torque comparison valid: since we all have to use about the same prop, that variable isn't a variable, so the apples to apples horsepower thing still applies. The only new props I'm aware of that actually have better efficiency and increase the thrust enough to matter, as measured by the old fish-scale-on-the-tail method, is the new Whirlwinds but they aren't cheap. +++ #9982 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Engine torque With