KR> engines

2015-02-17 Thread pjohnson at kmts.ca


KR> engines

2015-02-01 Thread Marty Martin
HAS ANYONE USED A HIRTH 30 ENGINE ON A KR.  I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE OUT
COME IF POSSIBLE

M. Greg Martin


KR> engines

2015-01-23 Thread Flesner
At 04:53 AM 1/23/2015, you wrote:
>If I could afford it, I would seriously be considering the UL Power engines,
>but for an economical engine, if your plane can take the weight, a Lycoming
>320 would be great for slightly less weight, get a re-built Cont 0200 if you
>can find one.  I understand that the 320 is the easiest to find because
>there are so many of them.
>++


I consider the Lycombing 0-320 too much engine, weight and power, for 
the KR unless you make considerable modifications.
The 0-200 and Corvair are as big as you need on the KR for a great 
flying airplane.  If you have an 0-320, put it on an RV.

Larry Flesner





KR> Engines and failures

2012-01-02 Thread Mark Jones
>Jeff Scott wrote:
>I do expect for them to have occasional issues, but I don't EVER expect one 
>of them to have a complete failure in flight.

I have been burning holes in the sky since 1976 and have flown behind 
countless different certified engines. Personally, I never had an issue in 
the air where one completely quit except in a Warrior and that was induced 
by me. I was doing severe unusual attitudes and sucked the fuel right out of 
the carb. At least that is what I suspected since when I leveled her out she 
started right back up. I did have an engine in a Cessna 182 crap out on me 
as I was powering up for the take off roll but a new set of plugs fixed 
that. However, I have seen many reports of engine failures in certified 
aircraft including broken cranks which brought the plane down. I am not 
getting into a pissing match here but anything mechanical can and will fail 
sooner or later. There is not a mechanical part made that has a life of 
infinity. You mention things like a spun bearing. Maybe that did not stop 
the engine but it is a failed part. We should hope and expect our engines to 
reach TBO so that we can repair and replace any failed parts found. I do not 
think anyone should get so complacent as to think that their engine will 
never completely fail in flight. If you do feel that way then I suggest the 
NTSB accident reports as some good reading. The Corvair engine is by no 
means a bullet proof engine and may never be. I admit that every time I take 
off I wonder if I will encounter a problem. After all, I have had five 
engine outs with the Corvair and I have been very lucky to make it back to 
an airport every time. When I started flying behind the Corvair I too didn't 
EVER expect to have a complete failure in flight but I did...five times. So, 
is my engine perfect now and will I never have another problem...I doubt it. 
Maybe I should just switch over to an 0-200.


Mark Jones (N886MJ)
Stevens Point, WI
E-mail: flyk...@charter.net
Web: www.flykr2s.com




KR> Engines for sale

2011-12-16 Thread Daniel Root
I have a 1600 HAPI with dual ignition, and a 2100d Revmaster for sale.  The 
revmaster has a turbo, too.  One engine is bolted up to a KR mount, and the 
other has a mount that fits something else.  I have props for both, and at 
least one nose cone.  If someone wants these right away, you could have the 
whole shooting match for 2500.  However, the Revmaster was remanned privately a 
few years ago.  It has NEVER been run, comes with the external oil cooler and 
filter, and an old turbo.  The HAPI has maybe an hour on it, but it has not 
been run for ten years.  You can have the lot as is, but I want to test these 
both.

If I determine the HAPI is ok, I will set a price on it separately in the 
neighborhood of a grand, with mount and a prop

If the Revmaster is ok, expect 2500, and get a prop, kr mount, revflo, and old 
turbo


KR> Engines

2008-11-03 Thread Dave Arbogast, CISSP
Hi Jeff, for $20 on a multi-grand engine, why think about the cost of a 
trip to McNasty (AKA Micky-D)  with the kids ?  IMHO, replace them if 
they are out of spec.
-dave

Jeff Scott wrote:
> The consequence of failing to replace 4 $5.00 guides and leaving in guides 
> that were worn beyond spec was an engine that tends to push oil out the blow 
> by and drool oil onto the ramp. 
>   


KR> Engines

2008-11-03 Thread Jeff Scott
Stuff happens with all engines.  From Mark's description of the wear on the cam 
gear, it sounds as if either the cam or crank gear was just a little bit 
eccentric which was bound to cause a failure.  With no PMA process in place for 
something like a Corvair or VW engine, how do you make sure that you are 
getting quality parts?  Are you engine builders checking your gear runout with 
a dial indicator?  I probably would not have.  It sounds as if there may be a 
batch of either cam or crank gears that are not quite true.

FWIW, I have my O-200 apart for some maintenance right now as well.  When I 
built this engine, I let my machinist talk me out of replacing the exhaust 
valve guides.  I'll mark that up to his and my learning curve with these 
engines.  The consequence of failing to replace 4 $5.00 guides and leaving in 
guides that were worn beyond spec was an engine that tends to push oil out the 
blow by and drool oil onto the ramp.  I've had this tear down scheduled for 
some time as routine maintenance during this year's annual inspection.  When I 
pulled the valve cover off #3 cylinder, something fell out of the valve cover 
and thumped into the drain pan.  I found that sometime in the last 350 hours, 
an outside rocker shaft boss had broken off and was laying inside the valve 
cover.  Fortunately, the center boss is pretty beefy and held the rocker shaft 
in place so the failure didn't impact the engine performance.  

This is the type of engine problem I love to find.  The broken part failed to 
impact the engine performance and was found with the plane parked safely in the 
hangar. :o)  I do expect this engine to be apart for the next month as this 
cylinder will have to be sent out for repair.

Jeff Scott
Los Alamos, NM

_
Smart Vacation.  Stay Longer, Pay Less!  Click Here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nJgyLAKT2DZNfdduwndZCjeiH0DHo6UMXcvf1e45NyETnAc/?count=1234567890




KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Nick Brennan
I'm looking (just looking, I can't afford the engine yet, and no where near 
ready for it yet), where do y'all find your engines to buy?

I'm sure there's great deals out there, somewhere

(by the way, sorry if this appears twice, I'm having a heck of a problem 
getting the KR Net mailing list to actually post my submisions)

Nick Brennan
nickdbren...@comcast.net 




KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread william Clapp
If you are going CORVAIR - I picked up mine froma junkyard for about 150.00  a 
few weeks later and a couple thouseand bucks and I had a running engine.  Of 
course the Corvair has changed somewhat since I built mine and upgraded it so I 
think that if you built it yourself you could finish it for about $4000 with 
all the conversion parts installed.  If you buy it outright youll pay 8.000.00  
But that is half the price of a Jab or O200 and rebuild costs are in the 
hundreds of dollars, not thousands.  I like mine.   450 hours on Corvair and 
loving it!
  Good luck in you choicesBill Clapp

Nick Brennan  wrote:
  I'm looking (just looking, I can't afford the engine yet, and no where near 
ready for it yet), where do y'all find your engines to buy?

I'm sure there's great deals out there, somewhere

(by the way, sorry if this appears twice, I'm having a heck of a problem 
getting the KR Net mailing list to actually post my submisions)

Nick Brennan
nickdbren...@comcast.net 


___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
Post photos, introductions, and For Sale items to 
http://www.kr2forum.com/phpBB2/index.php
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html



-
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.


KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Colin Rainey
Would you suggest I keep it or go ahead and rebuild a Corvair? -Jeff Wilder

Jeff you cannot buy and rebuild a Corvair engine with the correct aviation
parts for $1200. Cannot be done. Possibly for $3500 or $4000, but not $1200.
The parts alone from WW are over $2500, then another $2000 of you get
quality rebuild parts, or more.

If you are happy with the VW, rebuild it. If you want more torque, but are
already set up for the VW, add the redrive from Culver Props/Valley
Engineering, get the torque multiplication, a prop to match and happy
flying. Trust me the changeover takes much longer!

Colin Rainey
brokerpi...@bellsouth.net



KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Tim Haynes
Sorry Rick no offence meant, just got the impression i should always be 
looking at archives and links rather than putting it to the Guys. Having 
said that the links etc i have looked at have a fantastic amount of relevent 
info.
I am of to bed (past 2am here in Aus) to read Marks "My KR OPinions"
Tim
t...@dodo.com.au
- Original Message - 
From: "Rick Anderson" <scooter...@direcway.com>
To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: KR> Engines


> Nope! Just be patient. Everyone cant know everything! On the other hand
> there are some way smart folks on here when it comes to aircraft! Easy
> partner!
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tim Haynes" <t...@dodo.com.au>
> To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 8:41 AM
> Subject: Re: KR> Engines
>
>
>> Is It against the rules to ask questions ???
>>
>> Tim
>> Australia
>> t...@dodo.com.au
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Tim Haynes" <t...@dodo.com.au>
>> To: "KRMylist" <kr...@mylist.net>
>> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:57 PM
>> Subject: KR> Engines
>>
>>
>>> Have been checking out Jabiru. Has anyboby used a Jab 6 in there KR2 
>>> they
>>> rate at 120hp @ 3300 rpm. 178lbs (81kg) minus prop and mount. Fuel burn
>>> is
>>> 26 lph @ 2750 rpm 107hp continuous power rating.How does this stack up
>>> say
>>> to a Corvair. Is the weight re Corvair of 240lbs with engine mount.
>>>
>>> Regarding fuel capacity is there the capacity to cater for a decent 
>>> range
>>> with the larger engine.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>> t...@dodo.com.au
>>> ___
>>> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>>> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>>> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html 




KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Barry Kruyssen
Hi Tim,

I have Jabiru 2200 engine in my KR2 and could not be more happy (well maybe
if I had fitted the 3300 I'd be happier)

Support from Jabiru is fantastic, best support I ever had on any product.

The 2200 is lighter and has about the same HP but a better torque curve than
a VW, while the 3300 is about the same weight and has more HP and way more
torque than a VW.

Getting corvairs and/or parts in Australia is not so easy and the prices not
so cheap.

Now remember I am a motor mechanic, but I have not rebuilt an engine in 25
years.  Therefore if I was to get a VW or corvair I would have had an engine
rebuild shop do the work for me and the cost would then have been close to
what I paid for Jabiru.

The main factor for me going to a Jabiru is it is designed for aircraft and
works straight out of the box.
I chose the 2200 for 3 reasons:
1. Weight
2. Fuel economy
3. Price

Regards
Barry Kruyssen
Cairns, Australia
k...@bigpond.com
http://www.users.bigpond.com/kr2/kr2.htm


-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf
Of ifly...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, 13 February 2006 4:05 AM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: Re: KR> Engines

The Corvair is much heavier by far because of the weight of the money left
in your wallet.  The cost of a Jab is around 14,000 - 16,000 and very
little in the way of installation support from what Ive heard.  I have
around 2500 now tied up in my Corvair - but that is low in comparisson to
the  average builder.  I would figure the average Corvair builder would have
about 6000-9000 Firewall forward
(mount-starter-engine-prop-cowl-spinner-electrical) in their KR and William
Wynne provides almost all KR conversion parts and I have flwn 
behind them.   The one KR JAB that I know of flies well (though still slower

than mine but  probably due to higher drag and larger pilot)  but he did say
if he had to  do it again that he would probably go with the JAB.  The
Corvair has had a  couple minor problems but we talk about them openly and
have a great man and  shop with William Wynne to work these out and he has
his doors open to people  whereas JAB probably doesnt.  If I were going to
spend 16000 dollars on an  engine I would either buy a new O200 or 4
Corvairs.weight is not a 
big  issue  - they all are similar.   In regards to safety I know more
about 
the o200 record and the Corvair than I do about the JAB.  The Corvair  I
have now problem working on myself - very simple straight forward engine
that  any mechanic can work on without high tech tools or having to always
depend on high priced parts from and overseas company and information that
is not as readily available.  Now dont take me wrong - the JAB may be a very
good  engine - flown within factory limits - the "fun" with the Corvair is
that we can customize and push the limits (keeping safety in mind) and get
the most bang for the buck.  I have six Corvair engien cores at the shop and
one mostly  
complete spare engine for my KR allready built.   There is a new  engine in
it right 
now with only 4 hours on it.  This one I will modify for  turboCost - 
about 500.00 to turbo it (I was given the turbo as a gift)   but I may have
to pay 
for other things such a exhaust work and intake  work.  I will not be
pushing this engine hard.  The next engine will  have fifth bearing , turbo
, constant speed prop,  and such.  But I  can work on this and not be in
debt while I still fly.  That is the  advantage of the Corvair.  The other
main advantage is the information and  skills you learn while building your
engine.  You gain new friends and an  undertanding of engine design and
operation that is 
normally lost to those who  purchase a new engine in the box.   If all you
want to do 
is bolt on a  fly and feel like you never have to look at the engine for
1000 hours or better  - than dont fly.  All engines require maintenence and
are prone to  breaking.  The O200 has one of the best record but does
require maintenance.  The choice is yours.  Study the individual engines,
support networks, maintenance procedures and cost, cost of operation,
reliability, and your own goals as far as learning and flying.  Then make
the best choice.

Bill Clapp and 41768
Valdosta, GA




KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Tim Haynes
Hi Guys

I have had a good look at Marks Corvair Engine information. Other than cost 
what is the advantage of using the Corvair 2700 100 hp (realizing they can be 
developed to put out more power) over the Rotax 100 and 115hp which are a both 
much lighter engine. 62.6kg and 70kg respectively.

Regards,

Tim 
t...@dodo.com.au


KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Stephen Teate


"Other than cost..."

I think this is the main reason.

Stephen Teate
Paradise, Texas
ste...@compositecooling.com




KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Mark Jones
Are you looking to buy one?

Mark Jones (N886MJ) 
Wales, WI 
Visit my web site: http://www.flykr2s.com
Email: mailto:flyk...@wi.rr.com 



-Original Message-
From: krnet-bounces+flykr2s=wi.rr@mylist.net
[mailto:krnet-bounces+flykr2s=wi.rr@mylist.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
Teate
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:29 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: RE: KR> Engines




"Other than cost..."

I think this is the main reason.

Stephen Teate
Paradise, Texas
ste...@compositecooling.com


___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html



KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Rick Anderson
No offense taken. - Original Message - 
From: "Tim Haynes" <t...@dodo.com.au>
To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: KR> Engines


> Sorry Rick no offence meant, just got the impression i should always be
> looking at archives and links rather than putting it to the Guys. Having
> said that the links etc i have looked at have a fantastic amount of 
> relevent
> info.
> I am of to bed (past 2am here in Aus) to read Marks "My KR OPinions"
> Tim
> t...@dodo.com.au
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Rick Anderson" <scooter...@direcway.com>
> To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:46 AM
> Subject: Re: KR> Engines
>
>
>> Nope! Just be patient. Everyone cant know everything! On the other hand
>> there are some way smart folks on here when it comes to aircraft! Easy
>> partner!
>> - Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Tim Haynes" <t...@dodo.com.au>
>> To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
>> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 8:41 AM
>> Subject: Re: KR> Engines
>>
>>
>>> Is It against the rules to ask questions ???
>>>
>>> Tim
>>> Australia
>>> t...@dodo.com.au
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Tim Haynes" <t...@dodo.com.au>
>>> To: "KRMylist" <kr...@mylist.net>
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:57 PM
>>> Subject: KR> Engines
>>>
>>>
>>>> Have been checking out Jabiru. Has anyboby used a Jab 6 in there KR2
>>>> they
>>>> rate at 120hp @ 3300 rpm. 178lbs (81kg) minus prop and mount. Fuel burn
>>>> is
>>>> 26 lph @ 2750 rpm 107hp continuous power rating.How does this stack up
>>>> say
>>>> to a Corvair. Is the weight re Corvair of 240lbs with engine mount.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding fuel capacity is there the capacity to cater for a decent
>>>> range
>>>> with the larger engine.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>> t...@dodo.com.au
>>>> ___
>>>> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>>>> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>>>> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>>> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>>> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html 




KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Peter Drake
Hi Tim

We've been thinking of a Jab6 for our KR2S. Here in the UK we are  
restricted to 500 KG MAUW and the Corvair is too heavy for us to have a  
meaningful payload. The downside is the cost, so the Rotax 912 looks more  
likely for us.

Peter
Hereford UK

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:05:01 -, Tim Haynes  wrote:

> Hi Guys
>
> I have had a good look at Marks Corvair Engine information. Other than  
> cost what is the advantage of using the Corvair 2700 100 hp (realizing  
> they can be developed to put out more power) over the Rotax 100 and  
> 115hp which are a both much lighter engine. 62.6kg and 70kg respectively.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
> t...@dodo.com.au
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
>






KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Ron Smith


Tim Haynes  wrote:Hi Guys

I have had a good look at Marks Corvair Engine information. Other than cost 
what is the advantage of using the Corvair 2700 100 hp (realizing they can be 
developed to put out more power) over the Rotax 100 and 115hp which are a both 
much lighter engine. 62.6kg and 70kg respectively.

Regards,

Tim 
t...@dodo.com.au

  Hi Tim, 
  Remember that ADVERTIZED weights are sometimes decieving. If you want good 
information about the Corvair option go to William's site and read the whole 
thing. William is the kind of guy that gives you a blanced view of the product 
he is advocating. From what I've  read from him and what I've heard from others 
he is a man of integrity. Why is that important? Well because alot of people 
say alot of things to sell you something, and in the end the product is not all 
that it was hyped to be.
  Can you get 100 HP from a lighter engine? Yes. The bottom line is that it 
will cost you THOUSANDS of dollars more than the Corvair. If money is no object 
by all means get a certified engine.

  Bill Clapp has a top speed of 170, Mark L, is getting about the same. Joe 
Horton is posting some great numbers as well.

  The only thing that gives me pause is the reliability factor of the Corvair 
in the KR2 application.

  There have been some crank failures recently in KRs. William and others have 
been studying and testing to find out the reason for these failures, and from 
what I've read nitriding the cranks may be the the thing that brings a higher 
reliability factor to the engine. William has now reccomended not flying a 
corvair without nitriding.

  I figure that by the time I get to the Corvair stage of my project, there 
will be enough guinea pigs flying, that I will have enough data to make the 
engine decision final. As for now I'm still going with the Corvair.

  At TBO the Corvair is also a low cost rebuild compared to others.

  Hope this helps. I am not a engineer, machinest, mechanic, and have a low 
I.Q. :)

  Here is a link to Williams site http://www.flycorvair.com/index.html



Ron Smith
Kr2ssxl
Cypress Ca U.S.A.
mercedesm...@yahoo.com
http://ronsmith.myphotoalbum.com/albums.php

-
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.


KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread ifly...@aol.com
If you are building a KR2S you may not want a real light engine.  My  2S is 
built per plans with a Corvair and I did not have to put ballast anywhere  and 
I could not be happier with the CG and stability.  I chose the Corvair  mostly 
for cost (Remember I only have about 2500 in the engine and 3500 firewall  
forward)  but I enjoy building engines and the Corvair is very simple and  easy 
to work on.  Yes you can choose to spend a lot of money on a Corvair  but it 
is not required.   The choice is yours.

Bill and 41768



KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread ifly...@aol.com
As far as payload in the 2S - I have a stock 2S with Corvair - empty weight  
is 710 lbs.   I listed the gross at 1200 lbs.   One flight I  did - departure 
weight was @1400 and I was close to the aft CG.   I  had 6500 feet of runway 
so I could test this weight.  Takeoff was smooth  and normal - more sensitive 
on the elevator but not bad.  We climbed out at  750 ft/min at this weight.  
Again - not bad.  Flew 4 hours nonstop to  Illinois for the Gathering - smooth 
flight.  I never would have tried this  with my KR2 with the VW engine (2180 
turbo) but my new 2S performed  flawlessly.   I dont recomend flying over gross 
without lots of  experience and knowing your airplane's capabilities.   I know 
the  rules in the UK are different though and more stingent on some of the  
aspect.

Bill and 41768
Valdosta GA


KR> Engines, engines, engines, engines, engines, engines, engines, engines

2008-10-12 Thread Frank Ross
I do not understand why this topic has commanded so much time and space on 
KRnet. 
  Both the Corvair and the Jabiru are good choices for the KR. 
  The Jabiru costs about $10,000 more than the Corvair in the US. 
  This seems to be a critical point because I keep seeing builders in the US 
writing that the Jabiru is too expensive and builders OUTSIDE the US asking why 
they should build a heavier Corvair.
  Maybe $10,000 US is not much money in Europe and Australia.
  Builders outside the US probably find it just as expensive to find and build 
a Corvair as to buy a Jabiru.
  Put whatever you want in it. 
  Isn't that why they call it experimental?
  Frank Ross 


Tim Haynes  wrote:
  Hi Guys

I have had a good look at Marks Corvair Engine information. Other than cost 
what is the advantage of using the Corvair 2700 100 hp (realizing they can be 
developed to put out more power) over the Rotax 100 and 115hp which are a both 
much lighter engine. 62.6kg and 70kg respectively.

Regards,

Tim 
t...@dodo.com.au

Frank Ross, 
EAA Chapter 35,
San Geronimo, TX
RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk, England, UK
Visit my photo album at:
http://photos.yahoo.com/alamokr2

-

 What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos 


KR> Engines, engines, engines, engines, engines, engines, engines, engines

2008-10-12 Thread ifly...@aol.com
Not so much of a big deal - just trying to help a guy out which is what the  
net is all about.  I can understand the confusion.  I came from flying  a KR2 
with a turbo Revemaster 2180D that my father built to building the 2S I  have 
now.  Nothing wrong with the VW engine - other than they broke cranks  and the 
new cranks - that still broke cost about 800 dollars.  I never  broke a crank 
in the VW but did have to replace it when I found out the original  was a 
cast crank.  I was going to put a Type 4 VW in this engine untill I  found out 
that 1) it would cost as much as an 0200 to build with the rear drive  2) the 
rear drives were breaking and not on flying planes at the time 3) I read  Mark 
Langfords web page abou the type 4 and the new corvair engine.SO I purchase 
a 100 core engine and tore it down to see if it looked like a  beefy enough 
engine for what I wanted and I was sold!   I really liked  the design and 
simplicity so decided to go that direction.  I am an A  so I could easily 
enough 
maintain any engine but made the choice to go this  direction.  The main 
reasons were for cost and for the fact that I met  William Wynne and discovered 
a 
person and friend that thought like I did.   He is inovative and works hard 
with his product.  I liked the fact of being  able to visit and talk with him 
about my plane and engine.  It has been a  good learning experience.  Yes, this 
is experimental aviation, so you make  wise choices and be willing to learn and 
grow as you build.  Maybe tomorrow  there will be a 150 lb 300hp engine out 
there that only cost 500 bucks - in my  dreams...but for now we settle for a 
choice between some very good  products.  An easier way to make some of these 
choices is to decide what  the purpose and desire of the project is.  For 
example, I wanted the least  expensive, fastest KR I could build that would 
climb 
well, get to high  altittudes, be fuel efficient and easy to maintain.  That is 
what I  have.  I did not want a slow, extremely fuel efficient, take out 
around the  patch  KR.  I also did not want a show piece KR.  I have built  
many 
show cars in my time but have more fun with the daily drivers.I do not fly 
my KR at low altittudes on a regular basis, it is built for cross  country.  So 
in keeping with my goals for the airplane it caused me to make  those 
decisions.  A pre built fuselage ($250), engine ($2500), prop ($300),  gauges 
and 
panesl ($1200), GPS ($200).fuel tanks ($22.50)you see where I  am 
going.  
Total cost of materials in my plane $7318.00 !   I  kept within my goals and 
have the plane I wanted.  It also gave me a  flexible plane that is build to 
be adjustable, easy to modify and experiment  with.   So again, find out what 
your goals are, your capabilities, and  build accordingly.  Nobody would argue 
with you  over your choice in  powerplant just as over your choice in 
GPS.I like my Pilot III GPS beacuse  it is small and simple..and only cost 
me 
$200.  Others spend thousands for  something more complex and modern...Fine  I 
am 
happy with what I have and  my budget allows for this.   I have other things 
to spend money  onKR2SS #2 and KR1 and 1966 Corvair, and 1964 Type 34, and 
1957 panel  vanand so on.

Back to my premise of make good choices that fit the goals and move  on.  We 
want to welcome you in the air.  Flying is a bigger reward  than what engine 
or paint scheme you have.  Once you are flying you  realize this.  Someone 
mentioned the other day, "Boy, people must think  your rich because you own 
your 
own airplane."  I said in reply that I didnt  build the plane to effect what 
people think of me or my wealth or position in  life, I built the airplane 
because I love to fly.   Id be happier with  a good flying ugly airplane than 
with 
a thing of beauty that never leaves the  ground.  The real beauty is in seeing 
a sunset from 6000' , or flying above  the trees in the fall or in the 
winterGod's beauty.  The plane give me  a new perch to view it from and for 
that 
I am grateful.

Bill and 41768
Valdosta, GA



KR> Engines, engines, engines, engines, engines, engines, engines, engines

2008-10-12 Thread Ron Smith


ifly...@aol.com wrote:Not so much of a big deal - just trying to help a guy 
out which is what the 
net is all about.


  Ron Smith writes,

  Boy! A guy that can build an airplane, and write prose as well!

  Nice post Bill. Looking forward to meeting you one day when my project and 
life circumstances permit.



Ron Smith
Kr2ssxl
Cypress Ca U.S.A.
mercedesm...@yahoo.com
http://ronsmith.myphotoalbum.com/albums.php

-
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!


KR> Engines / information

2008-10-12 Thread Tim Haynes
Hi Virgil

Thank you for your words. I presume you are referring to my mail. "Is it 
against the rules to ask questions" ! I had sent a reply to the original 
response i got from this message unfortunately i have had net problems for 2 
days. My reply said "No Offence Meant".

It wasnt about the time passing by before receiving a reply. I dont expect 
an instant reply, and i am quite happy to do the reaserch required. This is 
not my first major project requiring a fair amount of tenacity, 
resourcefulness and most of all extreme attention to detail.
I thought we were supposed to encourage asking questions which might 
generate a reply from the Guys at the other end. And perhaps benifit others.

Having said that.The KR2 web and archive sites i have looked at are full of 
info it would take 300 life times to accumilate and more. In turn checking 
the website info can often and did in my case generate a lot of new 
questions !

Thanks, Tim, Australia. t...@dodo.com.au

- Original Message - 
From: "VIRGIL N SALISBURY" <virg...@juno.com>
To: <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:40 AM
Subject: Re: KR> Engines / information


>Annd pick up the Newsletters on CD, Virg
>
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:18:25 -0600 Larry Flesner
> <fles...@verizon.net> writes:
>> At 07:57 AM 2/12/2006, you wrote:
>> >Have been checking out Jabiru. Has anyboby used a Jab 6 in there
>> KR2
>> >Tim
>> +++
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> I can understand your excitement on starting a new project but many
>> of
>> the answers you are looking for are out there in one form or
>> another
>> if you'll spend a little time surfing the web.  The krnet e-mail
>> archives
>> are another good source of information.
>>
>> Start at
>> www.krnet.org
>>
>> and visit the many different builders sites.  Look at the pictures
>> taken
>> at the last several KR Gatherings and you will see a picture of
>> a 6 cylinder Jab in a KR.  Give it some time.  You won't acquire all
>> of
>> your information and understanding overnight.  The aircraft that
>> your
>> KR becomes is limited more by your imagination than possibilities.
>>
>> Good Luck
>>
>> Larry Flesner
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Search the KRnet Archives at
>> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>>
>>
>
>
> Virgil N. Salisbury - AMSOIL
> www.lubedealer.com/salisbury
> Miami ,Fl
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html 




KR> Engines, engines, engines, engines, engines, engines, engines, engines

2008-10-12 Thread David Kopanski
Very well said Bill.Thanks.

David Kopanski
Kirkuk, Iraq



-Original Message-
From: krnet-bounces+david.kopanski=halliburton@mylist.net
[mailto:krnet-bounces+david.kopanski=halliburton@mylist.net] On
Behalf Of ifly...@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:03 AM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: Re: KR> Engines, engines, engines, engines, engines, engines,
engines,engines

Not so much of a big deal - just trying to help a guy out which is what
the  
net is all about.  I can understand the confusion.  I came from flying
a KR2 
with a turbo Revemaster 2180D that my father built to building the 2S I
have 
now.  Nothing wrong with the VW engine - other than they broke cranks
and the 
new cranks - that still broke cost about 800 dollars.  I never  broke a
crank 
in the VW but did have to replace it when I found out the original  was
a 
cast crank.  I was going to put a Type 4 VW in this engine untill I
found out 
that 1) it would cost as much as an 0200 to build with the rear drive
2) the 
rear drives were breaking and not on flying planes at the time 3) I read
Mark 
Langfords web page abou the type 4 and the new corvair engine.SO I
purchase 
a 100 core engine and tore it down to see if it looked like a  beefy
enough 
engine for what I wanted and I was sold!   I really liked  the design
and 
simplicity so decided to go that direction.  I am an A  so I could
easily enough 
maintain any engine but made the choice to go this  direction.  The main

reasons were for cost and for the fact that I met  William Wynne and
discovered a 
person and friend that thought like I did.   He is inovative and works
hard 
with his product.  I liked the fact of being  able to visit and talk
with him 
about my plane and engine.  It has been a  good learning experience.
Yes, this 
is experimental aviation, so you make  wise choices and be willing to
learn and 
grow as you build.  Maybe tomorrow  there will be a 150 lb 300hp engine
out 
there that only cost 500 bucks - in my  dreams...but for now we settle
for a 
choice between some very good  products.  An easier way to make some of
these 
choices is to decide what  the purpose and desire of the project is.
For 
example, I wanted the least  expensive, fastest KR I could build that
would climb 
well, get to high  altittudes, be fuel efficient and easy to maintain.
That is 
what I  have.  I did not want a slow, extremely fuel efficient, take out

around the  patch  KR.  I also did not want a show piece KR.  I have
built  many 
show cars in my time but have more fun with the daily drivers.I do
not fly 
my KR at low altittudes on a regular basis, it is built for cross
country.  So 
in keeping with my goals for the airplane it caused me to make  those 
decisions.  A pre built fuselage ($250), engine ($2500), prop ($300),
gauges and 
panesl ($1200), GPS ($200).fuel tanks ($22.50)you see where I
am going.  
Total cost of materials in my plane $7318.00 !   I  kept within my goals
and 
have the plane I wanted.  It also gave me a  flexible plane that is
build to 
be adjustable, easy to modify and experiment  with.   So again, find out
what 
your goals are, your capabilities, and  build accordingly.  Nobody would
argue 
with you  over your choice in  powerplant just as over your choice in 
GPS.I like my Pilot III GPS beacuse  it is small and simple..and
only cost me 
$200.  Others spend thousands for  something more complex and
modern...Fine  I am 
happy with what I have and  my budget allows for this.   I have other
things 
to spend money  onKR2SS #2 and KR1 and 1966 Corvair, and 1964 Type
34, and 
1957 panel  vanand so on.

Back to my premise of make good choices that fit the goals and move  on.
We 
want to welcome you in the air.  Flying is a bigger reward  than what
engine 
or paint scheme you have.  Once you are flying you  realize this.
Someone 
mentioned the other day, "Boy, people must think  your rich because you
own your 
own airplane."  I said in reply that I didnt  build the plane to effect
what 
people think of me or my wealth or position in  life, I built the
airplane 
because I love to fly.   Id be happier with  a good flying ugly airplane
than with 
a thing of beauty that never leaves the  ground.  The real beauty is in
seeing 
a sunset from 6000' , or flying above  the trees in the fall or in the 
winterGod's beauty.  The plane give me  a new perch to view it from
and for that 
I am grateful.

Bill and 41768
Valdosta, GA

___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
--
This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and 
privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review, 
use, distribution, or disclos

KR> Engines / information

2008-10-12 Thread VIRGIL N SALISBURY
The CD of the newsketters is from Larry Capp. Look at it anytime.
No bad questions, Just SOMETIMES S A answers, Virg

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:38:04 +1000 "Tim Haynes" <t...@dodo.com.au> writes:
> Hi Virgil
> 
> Thank you for your words. I presume you are referring to my mail. 
> "Is it 
> against the rules to ask questions" ! I had sent a reply to the 
> original 
> response i got from this message unfortunately i have had net 
> problems for 2 
> days. My reply said "No Offence Meant".
> 
> It wasnt about the time passing by before receiving a reply. I dont 
> expect 
> an instant reply, and i am quite happy to do the reaserch required. 
> This is 
> not my first major project requiring a fair amount of tenacity, 
> resourcefulness and most of all extreme attention to detail.
> I thought we were supposed to encourage asking questions which might 
> 
> generate a reply from the Guys at the other end. And perhaps benifit 
> others.
> 
> Having said that.The KR2 web and archive sites i have looked at are 
> full of 
> info it would take 300 life times to accumilate and more. In turn 
> checking 
> the website info can often and did in my case generate a lot of new 
> 
> questions !
> 
> Thanks, Tim, Australia. t...@dodo.com.au
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "VIRGIL N SALISBURY" <virg...@juno.com>
> To: <kr...@mylist.net>
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:40 AM
> Subject: Re: KR> Engines / information
> 
> 
> >Annd pick up the Newsletters on CD, Virg
> >
> > On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:18:25 -0600 Larry Flesner
> > <fles...@verizon.net> writes:
> >> At 07:57 AM 2/12/2006, you wrote:
> >> >Have been checking out Jabiru. Has anyboby used a Jab 6 in 
> there
> >> KR2
> >> >Tim
> >> 
> +++
> >>
> >> Tim,
> >>
> >> I can understand your excitement on starting a new project but 
> many
> >> of
> >> the answers you are looking for are out there in one form or
> >> another
> >> if you'll spend a little time surfing the web.  The krnet e-mail
> >> archives
> >> are another good source of information.
> >>
> >> Start at
> >> www.krnet.org
> >>
> >> and visit the many different builders sites.  Look at the 
> pictures
> >> taken
> >> at the last several KR Gatherings and you will see a picture of
> >> a 6 cylinder Jab in a KR.  Give it some time.  You won't acquire 
> all
> >> of
> >> your information and understanding overnight.  The aircraft that
> >> your
> >> KR becomes is limited more by your imagination than 
> possibilities.
> >>
> >> Good Luck
> >>
> >> Larry Flesner
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Search the KRnet Archives at
> >> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> >> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to 
> krnet-le...@mylist.net
> >> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Virgil N. Salisbury - AMSOIL
> > www.lubedealer.com/salisbury
> > Miami ,Fl
> >
> > ___
> > Search the KRnet Archives at 
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to 
> krnet-le...@mylist.net
> > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html 
> 
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at 
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> 
> 


Virgil N. Salisbury - AMSOIL
www.lubedealer.com/salisbury
Miami ,Fl



KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Tim Haynes
Have been checking out Jabiru. Has anyboby used a Jab 6 in there KR2 they rate 
at 120hp @ 3300 rpm. 178lbs (81kg) minus prop and mount. Fuel burn is 26 lph @ 
2750 rpm 107hp continuous power rating.How does this stack up say to a Corvair. 
Is the weight re Corvair of 240lbs with engine mount. 

Regarding fuel capacity is there the capacity to cater for a decent range with 
the larger engine.

Tim
t...@dodo.com.au


KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Tim Haynes
Is It against the rules to ask questions ???

Tim
Australia
t...@dodo.com.au
- Original Message - 
From: "Tim Haynes" <t...@dodo.com.au>
To: "KRMylist" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:57 PM
Subject: KR> Engines


> Have been checking out Jabiru. Has anyboby used a Jab 6 in there KR2 they 
> rate at 120hp @ 3300 rpm. 178lbs (81kg) minus prop and mount. Fuel burn is 
> 26 lph @ 2750 rpm 107hp continuous power rating.How does this stack up say 
> to a Corvair. Is the weight re Corvair of 240lbs with engine mount.
>
> Regarding fuel capacity is there the capacity to cater for a decent range 
> with the larger engine.
>
> Tim
> t...@dodo.com.au
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html 




KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Rick Anderson
Nope! Just be patient. Everyone cant know everything! On the other hand 
there are some way smart folks on here when it comes to aircraft! Easy 
partner!
- Original Message - 
From: "Tim Haynes" <t...@dodo.com.au>
To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: KR> Engines


> Is It against the rules to ask questions ???
>
> Tim
> Australia
> t...@dodo.com.au
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tim Haynes" <t...@dodo.com.au>
> To: "KRMylist" <kr...@mylist.net>
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:57 PM
> Subject: KR> Engines
>
>
>> Have been checking out Jabiru. Has anyboby used a Jab 6 in there KR2 they
>> rate at 120hp @ 3300 rpm. 178lbs (81kg) minus prop and mount. Fuel burn 
>> is
>> 26 lph @ 2750 rpm 107hp continuous power rating.How does this stack up 
>> say
>> to a Corvair. Is the weight re Corvair of 240lbs with engine mount.
>>
>> Regarding fuel capacity is there the capacity to cater for a decent range
>> with the larger engine.
>>
>> Tim
>> t...@dodo.com.au
>> ___
>> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html 




KR> Engines / information

2008-10-12 Thread Larry Flesner
At 07:57 AM 2/12/2006, you wrote:
>Have been checking out Jabiru. Has anyboby used a Jab 6 in there KR2
>Tim
+++

Tim,

I can understand your excitement on starting a new project but many of
the answers you are looking for are out there in one form or another
if you'll spend a little time surfing the web.  The krnet e-mail archives
are another good source of information.

Start at
www.krnet.org

and visit the many different builders sites.  Look at the pictures taken
at the last several KR Gatherings and you will see a picture of
a 6 cylinder Jab in a KR.  Give it some time.  You won't acquire all of
your information and understanding overnight.  The aircraft that your
KR becomes is limited more by your imagination than possibilities.

Good Luck

Larry Flesner




KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread E.T.Gmerek
From: "Tim Haynes" <t...@dodo.com.au>
> To: "KRMylist" <kr...@mylist.net>
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:57 PM
> Subject: KR> Engines
>
>
>> Have been checking out Jabiru. Has anyboby used a Jab 6 in there KR2 
>> they rate at 120hp @ 3300 rpm. 178lbs (81kg) minus prop and mount. 
>> Fuel burn is 26 lph @ 2750 rpm 107hp continuous power rating.How does

>> this stack up say
>> to a Corvair. Is the weight re Corvair of 240lbs with engine mount.
>>
>> Regarding fuel capacity is there the capacity to cater for a decent 
>> range with the larger engine.
>>
>> Tim
>> t...@dodo.com.au
Tim, the greatest difference I know of re: Jabiru vs. Corvair is the
cost difference, the difference between mortgaging the house or flying a
plane.
Ed 


KR> Engines / information

2008-10-12 Thread VIRGIL N SALISBURY
Annd pick up the Newsletters on CD, Virg

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:18:25 -0600 Larry Flesner
 writes:
> At 07:57 AM 2/12/2006, you wrote:
> >Have been checking out Jabiru. Has anyboby used a Jab 6 in there 
> KR2
> >Tim
> +++
> 
> Tim,
> 
> I can understand your excitement on starting a new project but many 
> of
> the answers you are looking for are out there in one form or 
> another
> if you'll spend a little time surfing the web.  The krnet e-mail 
> archives
> are another good source of information.
> 
> Start at
> www.krnet.org
> 
> and visit the many different builders sites.  Look at the pictures 
> taken
> at the last several KR Gatherings and you will see a picture of
> a 6 cylinder Jab in a KR.  Give it some time.  You won't acquire all 
> of
> your information and understanding overnight.  The aircraft that 
> your
> KR becomes is limited more by your imagination than possibilities.
> 
> Good Luck
> 
> Larry Flesner
> 
> 
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at 
> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> 
> 


Virgil N. Salisbury - AMSOIL
www.lubedealer.com/salisbury
Miami ,Fl



KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread ifly...@aol.com
The Corvair is much heavier by far because of the weight of the money left  
in your wallet.  The cost of a Jab is around 14,000 - 16,000 and very  little 
in the way of installation support from what Ive heard.  I have  around 2500 
now tied up in my Corvair - but that is low in comparisson to the  average 
builder.  I would figure the average Corvair builder would have  about 
6000-9000 
Firewall forward  (mount-starter-engine-prop-cowl-spinner-electrical) in their 
KR and William  Wynne provides almost all KR conversion parts and I have flwn 
behind them.   The one KR JAB that I know of flies well (though still slower 
than mine but  probably due to higher drag and larger pilot)  but he did say if 
he had to  do it again that he would probably go with the JAB.  The Corvair 
has had a  couple minor problems but we talk about them openly and have a great 
man and  shop with William Wynne to work these out and he has his doors open 
to people  whereas JAB probably doesnt.  If I were going to spend 16000 dollars 
on an  engine I would either buy a new O200 or 4 Corvairs.weight is not a 
big  issue  - they all are similar.   In regards to safety I know more  about 
the o200 record and the Corvair than I do about the JAB.  The Corvair  I have 
now problem working on myself - very simple straight forward engine that  any 
mechanic can work on without high tech tools or having to always depend on  
high priced parts from and overseas company and information that is not as  
readily available.  Now dont take me wrong - the JAB may be a very good  engine 
- 
flown within factory limits - the "fun" with the Corvair is that we can  
customize and push the limits (keeping safety in mind) and get the most bang 
for  
the buck.  I have six Corvair engien cores at the shop and one mostly  
complete spare engine for my KR allready built.   There is a new  engine in it 
right 
now with only 4 hours on it.  This one I will modify for  turboCost - 
about 500.00 to turbo it (I was given the turbo as a gift)   but I may have to 
pay 
for other things such a exhaust work and intake  work.  I will not be pushing 
this engine hard.  The next engine will  have fifth bearing , turbo , 
constant speed prop,  and such.  But I  can work on this and not be in debt 
while I 
still fly.  That is the  advantage of the Corvair.  The other main advantage is 
the information and  skills you learn while building your engine.  You gain 
new friends and an  undertanding of engine design and operation that is 
normally lost to those who  purchase a new engine in the box.   If all you want 
to do 
is bolt on a  fly and feel like you never have to look at the engine for 1000 
hours or better  - than dont fly.  All engines require maintenence and are 
prone to  breaking.  The O200 has one of the best record but does require  
maintenance.  The choice is yours.  Study the individual engines,  support 
networks, maintenance procedures and cost, cost of operation,  reliability, and 
your 
own goals as far as learning and flying.  Then make  the best choice.

Bill Clapp and 41768
Valdosta, GA


KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Brian Kraut
There is at least one that I know of.  It would be my first choice if they
were not so expensive here, but since you are in Australia the price
difference between a Jaibru and a Vair is probably not so great.

Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net]On
Behalf Of Tim Haynes
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 8:57 AM
To: KRMylist
Subject: KR> Engines


Have been checking out Jabiru. Has anyboby used a Jab 6 in there KR2 they
rate at 120hp @ 3300 rpm. 178lbs (81kg) minus prop and mount. Fuel burn is
26 lph @ 2750 rpm 107hp continuous power rating.How does this stack up say
to a Corvair. Is the weight re Corvair of 240lbs with engine mount.

Regarding fuel capacity is there the capacity to cater for a decent range
with the larger engine.

Tim
t...@dodo.com.au
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html





KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Doug Rupert
Ask away but first check the archives on the subject in question lest some
get their knickers in a knot. If you still can't find the answer then ask.
Many here are only too willing to help in any way they can. After a while
around here you'll know who to ask and just send them a note off net for
detailed info.
Doug Rupert
Simcoe Ontario

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On Behalf
Of Tim Haynes
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 9:41 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: Re: KR> Engines

Is It against the rules to ask questions ???

Tim
Australia


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 2/6/2006





KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread JIM VANCE
I have been following the threads on engine modifications, and I want to add my 
two cents worth.  You can boost the horsepower considerably--consider the 700 
horsepower that dragsters get out of conventional blocks--for a few seconds.  
However, it is NOT a one way deal without a tradeoff.

I have driven air-cooled bugs several hundred thousand miles.  If  you keep the 
valves adjusted and change oil whenever it feels gritty on the dipstick, you 
can safely expect 80 to 100 thousand miles out of the engine.  However, if you 
put a supercharger on the engine (as I did), you quickly find out that the 
valves are the weakest link.  You get them fixed, then you find that number 
three piston is quick to melt down.

My point is that a standard engine is good for 2000+ hours.  Each time you 
raise the horsepower 10%, you halve the life.  You can quickly get to the point 
that you may get to your destination faster---maybe.

I would rather take a little more time and KNOW that I am going to arrive.

Jim Vance
va...@hbcomm.net


KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Colin Rainey
Let me preface MY posts with the statement that they ALL concern use in a KR, 
not other aircraft.
In relation to the Subarus, the units that are in the proper weight category 
for use in the KR are under powered and do not perform as stated in ads. EA81 
and EA 82 as an example.  To get the rated hp requires use at an rpm that 
causes these engines to have a very short life.  The new engine that 
Eggenfellner is now using may be a wonderful innovation, and very reliable, and 
great for use in an RV something, but are WAY TOO HEAVY for a KR!  They fall 
into the category comparable to O-360 or IO-360 both in weight and power.  They 
DO NOT compare well to use in KRs.  KRs and Sonex aircraft require much lighter 
power plants, with less rated hp.

Secondly, a quick check of my posts concerning late model engine usage cautions 
against using any engine the operator pilot is not intimately familiar with.  
You have to work on it, troubleshoot it, maybe in the air, and repair it.  You 
better know ALL about it, not from somebody who tells you about it, but REALLY 
understand it, or else fly with something else.  I intend to fly at some point 
behind modern fuel injection, but I also have over 15 years experience working 
with auto fuel injection, and will use something I know well.  I will not 
instruct others, nor will I publish my results because I do not hold myself out 
as an "expert".   But I do understand the animal, and know its limitations.  If 
you do not, I suggest you fly with something else.

The REAL keys are reliability, ease of maintaining, and sufficient power to 
provide a margin of safety beyond minimums.  Evaluate by looking at specifics 
of each suggested engine, not generalizations.  Not timing chain or TIMING BELT 
is easy or simple to inspect or change, or you don't have an appreciation of 
the work required. I cannot tell you how many timing covers I have seen off the 
engine, with the owner believing nothing is wrong. For starters alot of the 
timing marks are on the cover. Second the cover was designed to prevent dirt 
and debris from damaging the belt, HELLO!REALLY study the engines please...

Ok, back to my motor mount.


Colin Rainey
brokerpilot9...@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.


KR> Engines, postings, and things...

2008-10-12 Thread Scott William

After reading Mark's post to me, it is apparent that
some have been offended by things posted by me. I do
hereby appologize to any that I have offended by my
sometimes raucious writing style. 

I enjoy the many things members of this board share
with others. I shall continue to read the many
informative and well thought-out postings from the
many members here, and refrain from posting for
awhile. 


Again, I am sorry if I have offended anyone here. 


Scott 



__ 
Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/



KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Robert L. Stone
 This message is for all of you builders in England or as most of you say 
the United Kingdom.
 Have any of you considered using an engine designed and proven for 
aircraft.  A few builders here have and they are using the Continental O-200.  
The engine is rated at 100 horse power and will move a KR-2 or KR-2S like a 
jet.  There is one for sale on Barnstormers. here is the URL
http://www.barnstormers.com/cat.php   The price is $6,500.00 but the seller may 
come down a bit.  I have no idea what the price for shipping to wherever you 
live in the UK.  Since there are American manufactured aircraft already in the 
UK, these engines may be available there.

Bob Stone, Harker Heights, 
Texas, USA
rsto...@hot.rr.com


Réf. : KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Serge VIDAL
Bob,

The reason they say "United Kindom" rather than "England" is that England 
is not alone. There is also Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland to think 
about. 

US engines are available throughout Europe. They are seldom used in small 
experimentals, because they cost an arm and a leg to buy and to maintain, 
and are not fuel efficient. The Rotax, and now the Jabiru, are more 
popular. In France, you also find a lot of certified modified VWs (the 
Limbach). 

Althoug since the British pound is now very high and the dollar so weak, 
it might be time for our UK fellows to go shopping.

Serge Vidal
KR2 "Kilimanjaro Cloud"
Paris, France





"Robert L. Stone" <rsto...@hot.rr.com>

Envoyé par : krnet-boun...@mylist.net
06/09/2005 23:41
Veuillez répondre à KRnet
Remis le : 06/09/2005 23:41


Pour :  "KR Builders Pilots" <kr...@mylist.net>
        cc :(ccc : Serge VIDAL/DNSA/SAGEM)
Objet : KR> Engines



 This message is for all of you builders in England or as most of you 
say the United Kingdom.
 Have any of you considered using an engine designed and proven for 
aircraft.  A few builders here have and they are using the Continental 
O-200.  The engine is rated at 100 horse power and will move a KR-2 or 
KR-2S like a jet.  There is one for sale on Barnstormers. here is the URL
http://www.barnstormers.com/cat.php   The price is $6,500.00 but the seller may 
come down a bit.  I have no 
idea what the price for shipping to wherever you live in the UK.  Since 
there are American manufactured aircraft already in the UK, these engines 
may be available there.

Bob Stone, Harker Heights, 
Texas, USA
rsto...@hot.rr.com
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html




KR> engines/Bendix Mag

2008-10-12 Thread Steve Bray
Brian
I got around to looking at my number [D4RN-3000] and it looks clean although 
VeeDuber sez they are an accident waiting to happen. Not encourageing! 
Anyone else out there got one ?
Thanks for the link, which I saved.

Steve Bray
Jackson, Tennessee



>From: "Brian Kraut" <brian.kr...@engalt.com>
>Reply-To: KRnet <kr...@mylist.net>
>To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
>Subject: RE: KR> engines/Bendix   Mag
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 23:12:47 -0400
>
>Right here:
>http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/MainFrame
>?OpenFrameSet=1889851=20037921
>
>If that link does not work go to www.faa.gov and on the pulldown bar near
>the top right that says quick find click on Airworthiness Directives.
>
>It is a funny thing, on certified parts we have A.D.s that come out that we
>have to comply with to be legal.  On non-certified parts we have no idea
>when there is a problem found that would have required an A.D. so we can 
>not
>comply and we are legal.
>
>I do recommend that everyone checks the A.D.s for their mags and other
>certified parts weather you care about being legal or not.  Better to know
>and decide if you want to comply than just keep your eyes shut.
>
>Brian Kraut
>Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
>www.engalt.com
>
>-Original Message-
>From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net]On
>Behalf Of Steve Bray
>Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 9:57 PM
>To: kr...@mylist.net
>Subject: RE: KR> engines/Bendix Mag
>
>
>Hello
>I have a new/ twenty year old Bendix on a same age Revmaster.
>Where do I find out about the AD?
> >
> > >Here's where it gets into some of the nits that people will undoubtedly
> > >want to pick.  If you are using a certified part, the ADs apply.  For
> > >instance, many of the dual ignition revmaster engines use the Bendix
> > >single drive dual magneto.  If that magneto is the same part number as
> >the
> > >ones on a certified engine, or the serial number falls into the range 
>of
> > >serial numbers for that type for which an AD has been issued, that AD
> >also
> > >applies to that magneto on the Revmaster engine.
> > >
>Steve Bray
>Jackson, Tennessee
>
>
>
>___
>Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
>
>___
>Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html





KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Jeff Scott


I would take the 2004 KR Gathering as a sample of KRs that fly routinely and 
fly cross country.  Someone can correct my numbers here if I'm off by 1 or two, 
but I counted 19 KRs that flew to the gathering.  Of those 19 the engines were:
1 Corvair
1 3300 Jabaru
7 Continental (O-200, C-85, and A-65)
10 VW (Varying displacements including Type 1 and Type 4 engines)
O Subaru
O Lycoming

What do I conclude from that?  No question that there are a bunch flying with 
VW and Continental engines.  No question there will be more Corvairs soon as 
they are the latest fad for an inexpensive engine with enough HP to make a KR 
perform.  No doubt the Jabaru is a great choice, but expensive.  Lycomings are 
pricey and generally too heavy for a KR.  The Subaru fad appears to be over.

Jeff

-- "Dann Johnson"  wrote:


Reading the FAA KR accident reports over past 5 years, it almost all went down 
to engine failures. The good news looked to be that mostly the pilots walked 
away with minor injuries.   Motor mounts on  my KR2 are currently for Great 
Planes VW, which sounded good to me before getting the corvair.   

Does anyone have statitics on how many KR2 / or perhaps other experimental 
craft that generally use VW, like the  Sonerai that are flying with VW / or 
Covair vs "rea" airplane engines like Continental.  

Dann Johnson




KR> engines/Bendix Mag

2008-10-12 Thread Brian Kraut
Right here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/MainFrame
?OpenFrameSet=1889851=20037921

If that link does not work go to www.faa.gov and on the pulldown bar near
the top right that says quick find click on Airworthiness Directives.

It is a funny thing, on certified parts we have A.D.s that come out that we
have to comply with to be legal.  On non-certified parts we have no idea
when there is a problem found that would have required an A.D. so we can not
comply and we are legal.

I do recommend that everyone checks the A.D.s for their mags and other
certified parts weather you care about being legal or not.  Better to know
and decide if you want to comply than just keep your eyes shut.

Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com

-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net]On
Behalf Of Steve Bray
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 9:57 PM
To: kr...@mylist.net
Subject: RE: KR> engines/Bendix Mag


Hello
I have a new/ twenty year old Bendix on a same age Revmaster.
Where do I find out about the AD?
>
> >Here's where it gets into some of the nits that people will undoubtedly
> >want to pick.  If you are using a certified part, the ADs apply.  For
> >instance, many of the dual ignition revmaster engines use the Bendix
> >single drive dual magneto.  If that magneto is the same part number as
>the
> >ones on a certified engine, or the serial number falls into the range of
> >serial numbers for that type for which an AD has been issued, that AD
>also
> >applies to that magneto on the Revmaster engine.
> >
Steve Bray
Jackson, Tennessee



___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html





KR> engines/Bendix Mag

2008-10-12 Thread Steve Bray
Thanks Brian

Steve Bray
Jackson, Tennessee



>From: "Brian Kraut" <brian.kr...@engalt.com>
>Reply-To: KRnet <kr...@mylist.net>
>To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
>Subject: RE: KR> engines/Bendix   Mag
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 23:12:47 -0400
>
>Right here:
>http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/MainFrame
>?OpenFrameSet=1889851=20037921
>
>If that link does not work go to www.faa.gov and on the pulldown bar near
>the top right that says quick find click on Airworthiness Directives.
>
>It is a funny thing, on certified parts we have A.D.s that come out that we
>have to comply with to be legal.  On non-certified parts we have no idea
>when there is a problem found that would have required an A.D. so we can 
>not
>comply and we are legal.
>
>I do recommend that everyone checks the A.D.s for their mags and other
>certified parts weather you care about being legal or not.  Better to know
>and decide if you want to comply than just keep your eyes shut.
>
>Brian Kraut
>Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
>www.engalt.com
>
>-Original Message-
>From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net]On
>Behalf Of Steve Bray
>Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 9:57 PM
>To: kr...@mylist.net
>Subject: RE: KR> engines/Bendix Mag
>
>
>Hello
>I have a new/ twenty year old Bendix on a same age Revmaster.
>Where do I find out about the AD?
> >
> > >Here's where it gets into some of the nits that people will undoubtedly
> > >want to pick.  If you are using a certified part, the ADs apply.  For
> > >instance, many of the dual ignition revmaster engines use the Bendix
> > >single drive dual magneto.  If that magneto is the same part number as
> >the
> > >ones on a certified engine, or the serial number falls into the range 
>of
> > >serial numbers for that type for which an AD has been issued, that AD
> >also
> > >applies to that magneto on the Revmaster engine.
> > >
>Steve Bray
>Jackson, Tennessee
>
>
>
>___
>Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
>
>___
>Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html





Re: Réf. : KR> engines

2008-10-12 Thread phillip matheson
Serge
How much is diesel over there.
Here Australia it is around $126.00 per litre.

Phil Matheson
mathe...@dodo.com.au
VH-PKR  ( Phil's KR)
61 3 58833588
Australia.( Down Under)
See My KR2 Building Web Page at:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/flyingkrphil/VHPKR.html

See our VW Engines and Home built web page at
http://www.vw-engines.com/
www.homebuilt-aviation.com/



Réf. : Re: Réf. : KR> engines

2008-10-12 Thread Serge VIDAL
Phil,

Here, Diesel is the cheapest fuel, at about 1 Euro a liter. Unleaded cost 
about 1.2 Euro. Avgas about 1.3, I think.

Serge




"phillip matheson" <mathe...@dodo.com.au>

Envoyé par : krnet-boun...@mylist.net
2005-05-14 10:39
Veuillez répondre à KRnet
Remis le : 2005-05-14 10:43


Pour :  "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
cc :(ccc : Serge VIDAL/DNSA/SAGEM)
    Objet : Re: Réf. : KR> engines



Serge
How much is diesel over there.
Here Australia it is around $126.00 per litre.

Phil Matheson
mathe...@dodo.com.au
VH-PKR  ( Phil's KR)
61 3 58833588
Australia.( Down Under)
See My KR2 Building Web Page at:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/flyingkrphil/VHPKR.html

See our VW Engines and Home built web page at
http://www.vw-engines.com/
www.homebuilt-aviation.com/

___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html




KR> engines

2008-10-12 Thread Brian Kraut
Speaking of certified engines, there is one gotcha I learned about that you
need to be aware of if you use one.

When you use a certified engine in an experimental you are required to
comply with all the A.D.s.  I was always under the impression in the past
that it was recommended on an experimental, but not required.  My DAR that
inspected my Midget Mustang with an O-200 said it was required so I had to
go back and research all the applicable A.D.s on the engine, mags,
alternator, starter, and carb.

I had the complete logbooks on the engine going back 30 something years and
many overhauls.  Some of the A.D.s were entered as complied with in the
logbook, and some were not even though they must have been done during the
overhauls.  I had to identify what was complied with and do what I could not
prove was complied with.  I was fairly lucky on this engine because what I
could not prove was done was easy to do again.

If you have some major A.D. that requires splitting the case to verify
compliance and you can not find a logbook entry you are out of luck and will
have to do it.  If you buy an old engine without logbooks you will have to
complete all the A.D.s again.  Some things to keep in mind before you buy
that nice looking engine at Oshkosh.

I am not sure if all DARs look for this or not.  It would be interresting to
hear experiences from others with certified engines that have been through
an inspection already.

Oh, also forget about getting a 25 hour test flying phase.  That is only for
a certified engine and prop combination with other conditions as well.  So
unless you are using an O-200 with the big diameter aluminum prop that it
had on the 150 it came off of you will still have 40 hours to fly off.

Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com





KR> engines

2008-10-12 Thread Bob Glidden
Brian
Your DAR is right,I just went through this on a certified aircraft a guy 
wanted annualed,he bought the plane for a good price (so he thought) because 
the lady had lost the log books on the engine so she had to sell it as if it 
did not have a engine.I talk to the FAA before I told him I would do the 
inspection and since there was not records on the engine, all applicable 
AD's had to be verified or done again.PLUS the plane had a prop strike and 
had never even been check after that,but that was in the new engine book 
they had started that only went back 63 hours.I turned down the pleasure of 
doing the inspection because of the time it would have required,but needless 
to say his good deal went bad quick.


> When you use a certified engine in an experimental you are required to
> comply with all the A.D.s.  I was always under the impression in the past
> that it was recommended on an experimental, but not required.  My DAR that
> inspected my Midget Mustang with an O-200 said it was required so I had to
> go back and research all the applicable A.D.s on the engine, mags,
> alternator, starter, and carb.

___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> 




KR> engines

2008-10-12 Thread Bob Glidden
Also I believe a certified engine also has to have a annual inspection even 
if it is in an experimental.I'll look that one up

>
>> When you use a certified engine in an experimental you are required to
>> comply with all the A.D.s.  I was always under the impression in the past
>> that it was recommended on an experimental, but not required.  My DAR 
>> that
>> inspected my Midget Mustang with an O-200 said it was required so I had 
>> to
>> go back and research all the applicable A.D.s on the engine, mags,
>> alternator, starter, and carb.
>
> ___
>> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
>> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>>
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> 




KR> engines

2008-10-12 Thread Gavin and Louise
Well I've got an O200 A.

Gav
- Original Message - 
From: "Don Chisholm" 

>I don't know why nobody is looking at
> A series Continentals. They're light,
> 170 lbs. with Bendix mags. with
> Slicks 6 lbs lighter. They can be easily




Réf. : KR> engines

2008-10-12 Thread Serge VIDAL
When we talk engine, I am always amazed at the fact that almost nobody 
seems concerned with fuel consumption. Here in Europe,fuel is by far the 
highest cost in flying, so it's kind of obsession.

I read yesterday that the Diamond DA40 (Austrian four seater, the big 
brother of the DA20 trainer) is offered in two versions: petrol or 
turbo-Diesel. Although the petrol version is more powerful, they did not 
sell a single petrol last year.

Serge Vidal
KR2 "Kilimanjaro Cloud"
Paris, France






Don Chisholm <chizmsupholst...@rogers.com>

Envoyé par : krnet-boun...@mylist.net
2005-05-12 04:35
Veuillez répondre à KRnet
Remis le : 2005-05-12 04:37


Pour :  kr...@mylist.net
cc :(ccc : Serge VIDAL/DNSA/SAGEM)
    Objet : KR> engines



I don't know why nobody is looking at
A series Continentals. They're light,
170 lbs. with Bendix mags. with
Slicks 6 lbs lighter. They can be easily
accessorized with a set up like 4 cylinder
Lycomings. They are readily available, and
parts are not that expensive. They are 171
cu. inches, with A80 pistons get 80 hp at
2700 RPMs and have an excellent reputation
for reliability. Old technology yes, but you 
can't argue with tried and true. E Magair is
working on a 4 cylinder Continental electronic
ignition that is even lighter than Slicks.
A lot less pucker factor here
___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html




KR> engines

2008-10-12 Thread Don Chisholm
I'm glad I live in Canada. It must be frustrating
to deal with a system that defies logic and is
archaic. What's the difference, a 40 year old 
converted car engine or a rebuilt aircraft engine
My bet's with the aircraft engine, log books or
not


KR> engines

2008-10-12 Thread Don Chisholm
Too bad an end run couldn't be figured
out around your rules like you started
to build a Chevy engine pistons first
that just happen to fit A65 Continental
bores and on further investigation you
sustituted cylinders which really didn't
adapt to the Chevy block so you used
Continental cases etc. or you started
converting a Lycoming 0 290G to
aircraft use and ended up using 0 290D
cases and crank ( except they're heavy)
and things progressed from there. just
a thought on how to deal with a dynosaur
called bureaucracy that is incapable of
adapting to the times


KR> engines

2008-10-12 Thread Donald Reid
At 11:00 PM 5/11/2005, you wrote:
>Speaking of certified engines, there is one gotcha I learned about that you
>need to be aware of if you use one.
>
>When you use a certified engine in an experimental you are required to
>comply with all the A.D.s.


This is not correct.  Your DAR was mistaken.  When a certificated engine is 
installed in an experimental aircraft, ADs and service bulletins do not 
need to be complied with.

There is one exception to this general rule and that is when a previously 
certificated engine is removed from an experimental and re-installed in a 
certificated airplane.  In this case, all ADs must be in compliance.

If your DAR raised (or raises) the issue, all you have to do is remove the 
data plate.



Don Reid  -  donreid "at" peoplepc.com
Bumpass, Va

Visit my web sites at:

AeroFoil, a 2-D Airfoil Design And Analysis Computer Program:
http://aerofoilengineering.com

KR2XL construction: http://aerofoilengineering.com/KR/KR2XL.htm
Aviation Surplus: http://aerofoilengineering.com/PartsListing/Airparts.htm
EAA Chapter 231: http://eaa231.org
Ultralights: http://usua250.org
VA EAA State Fly-in: http://vaeaa.org





KR> engines

2008-10-12 Thread Jeff Scott

Don,

The application of the rules have changed with regards to certified engines in 
experimentals.  They used to be exempt from Airworthyness Directives, but now 
the FAA has chosen to enforce the ADs.  A friend of mine had a mishap with his 
experimental last fall after 5" departed from one prop blade.  While reviewing 
the aircraft logs, the FAA wanted his logs and informed him that they would be 
looking for compliance with all applicable ADs for the O-320-H2 engine on his 
plane.  A certified engine on an experiemental is now required to comply with 
ADs.  Not really a change in regulation by the FAA, but instead is a change in 
the interpretation of the regulations.

Having said that, the vast majority of ADs exist for safety reasons and are 
based on long term experience with failure of that engine or part.  It is 
usually in your best interest to install the applicable ADs anyway.

Here's where it gets into some of the nits that people will undoubtedly want to 
pick.  If you are using a certified part, the ADs apply.  For instance, many of 
the dual ignition revmaster engines use the Bendix single drive dual magneto.  
If that magneto is the same part number as the ones on a certified engine, or 
the serial number falls into the range of serial numbers for that type for 
which an AD has been issued, that AD also applies to that magneto on the 
Revmaster engine.  

OK, the question was posed earlier about building your own engine using a 
Continental crank and case, but Chevy pistons.  In this example, any AD that 
applies to the crank and case would apply.  Any AD that applies to the piston, 
would not.  

What if it's an O-290 GPU?  Non of those parts are certified.  ADs would apply 
to certified parts that would be installed, such as Magnetos, carb, oil cooler. 
 The would not apply to the base engine and case as they are not certified 
parts.  Even the oil pump AD would not apply.  However, it would be in your 
best interest to comply anyway as there is a reason for the AD.  I've seen the 
condition of some of the pump gears that have been removed.

Bottom line here is that the ADs only apply to the certified parts.

-Jeff Scott

-

At 11:00 PM 5/11/2005, you wrote:
>Speaking of certified engines, there is one gotcha I learned about that you
>need to be aware of if you use one.
>
>When you use a certified engine in an experimental you are required to
>comply with all the A.D.s.


This is not correct.  Your DAR was mistaken.  When a certificated engine is 
installed in an experimental aircraft, ADs and service bulletins do not 
need to be complied with.

There is one exception to this general rule and that is when a previously 
certificated engine is removed from an experimental and re-installed in a 
certificated airplane.  In this case, all ADs must be in compliance.

If your DAR raised (or raises) the issue, all you have to do is remove the 
data plate.



Don Reid  -  donreid "at" peoplepc.com
Bumpass, Va

Visit my web sites at:

AeroFoil, a 2-D Airfoil Design And Analysis Computer Program:
http://aerofoilengineering.com

KR2XL construction: http://aerofoilengineering.com/KR/KR2XL.htm
Aviation Surplus: http://aerofoilengineering.com/PartsListing/Airparts.htm
EAA Chapter 231: http://eaa231.org
Ultralights: http://usua250.org
VA EAA State Fly-in: http://vaeaa.org



___
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html




KR> engines

2008-10-12 Thread Donald Reid
At 09:45 AM 5/12/2005, you wrote:
>The application of the rules have changed with regards to certified 
>engines in experimentals.  They used to be exempt from Airworthyness 
>Directives, but now the FAA has chosen to enforce the ADs. (...snip...)  A 
>certified engine on an experiemental is now required to comply with 
>ADs.  Not really a change in regulation by the FAA, but instead is a 
>change in the interpretation of the regulations.

Could this be a regional interpretation?  Can anyone else comment?

>Having said that, the vast majority of ADs exist for safety reasons and 
>are based on long term experience with failure of that engine or part.  It 
>is usually in your best interest to install the applicable ADs anyway.

I could not agree more.

>Here's where it gets into some of the nits that people will undoubtedly 
>want to pick.  If you are using a certified part, the ADs apply.  For 
>instance, many of the dual ignition revmaster engines use the Bendix 
>single drive dual magneto.  If that magneto is the same part number as the 
>ones on a certified engine, or the serial number falls into the range of 
>serial numbers for that type for which an AD has been issued, that AD also 
>applies to that magneto on the Revmaster engine.
>
>OK, the question was posed earlier about building your own engine using a 
>Continental crank and case, but Chevy pistons.  In this example, any AD 
>that applies to the crank and case would apply.  Any AD that applies to 
>the piston, would not.

However, as soon as you install a non-certificated part on a certificated 
engine without proper paperwork (such as Form 337 or STC), the original 
certification becomes invalid if it is used in a certificated 
application.  A non-certificated engine should not need to comply with the 
requirements of certification.

Simple solution, remove the original data plate and install your 
own.  Comply with the ADs and service bulletins as you see fit.



Don Reid  -  donreid "at" peoplepc.com
Bumpass, Va

Visit my web sites at:

AeroFoil, a 2-D Airfoil Design And Analysis Computer Program:
http://aerofoilengineering.com

KR2XL construction: http://aerofoilengineering.com/KR/KR2XL.htm
Aviation Surplus: http://aerofoilengineering.com/PartsListing/Airparts.htm
EAA Chapter 231: http://eaa231.org
Ultralights: http://usua250.org
VA EAA State Fly-in: http://vaeaa.org





KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread patric...@usfamily.net
Check these out

T1228R
T1127RB
T0326RB
T0112RH
T0112RD
T0608RD
64 Engine
Bloc & Bell T0828ZH
 Don't know the guy. This appeared in the monthly corvair club newsletter. You 
can call him direct for info.
Jerry Berge  (320) 684-2657

 I believe he is in Minneapolis, MN
Pat Driscoll
Saint Paul, MN 55102
patric...@usfamily.net



-- http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! --


KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread James Leverton
This guy does have alot of corvair stuff, however, I picked up the rh and 
the two rd motors two weeks ago from him.  William Wynne is right. email a 
local corvair club and ask about engines.  Thats how I found these three.  I 
already sold one to a buddy and I'm keeping one as a spare.  They are out 
there!Jim

>From: <patric...@usfamily.net>
>Reply-To: KRnet <kr...@mylist.net>
>To: "KR Mailing list" <kr...@mylist.net>
>Subject: KR> Engines
>Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:50:22 -0600
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from mc9-f31.hotmail.com ([65.54.166.38]) by mc9-s9.hotmail.com 
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:54:23 -0800
>Received: from lizard.esosoft.net ([38.118.200.18]) by mc9-f31.hotmail.com 
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:54:00 -0800
>Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lizard.esosoft.net)by 
>lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30)id 1CRdve-yD-UH; Tue, 09 Nov 
>2004 13:53:30 -0800
>Received: from xo-m5.usfamily.net ([67.104.219.39])by lizard.esosoft.net 
>with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1CRdvX-xt-Uefor kr...@mylist.net; Tue, 09 Nov 
>2004 13:53:24 -0800
>Received: from [146.82.10.86] by usfamily.net (USFamily MTA v2.1.0)with 
>SMTP id com for <kr...@mylist.net>;Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:51:50 -0600 
>(CST)(envelope-from patric...@usfamily.net,authenticated user 
>patric...@usfamily.net)
>X-Message-Info: StaYHEBmGBp9zIomaQxVzI8STpaMd32EaT9uexOyT4U=
>Message-ID: <000c01c4c6a6$1da5ea60$560a5292@oemcomputer>
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
>X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.4
>X-BeenThere: kr...@mylist.net
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: KRnet 
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://mylist.net/listinfo/krnet>,<mailto:krnet-requ...@mylist.net?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mylist.net/private/krnet>
>List-Post: <mailto:kr...@mylist.net>
>List-Help: <mailto:krnet-requ...@mylist.net?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://mylist.net/listinfo/krnet>,<mailto:krnet-requ...@mylist.net?subject=subscribe>
>Errors-To: krnet-boun...@mylist.net
>Return-Path: krnet-boun...@mylist.net
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Nov 2004 21:54:00.0499 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[9ED73030:01C4C6A6]
>
>Check these out
>
>T1228R
>T1127RB
>T0326RB
>T0112RH
>T0112RD
>T0608RD
>64 Engine
>Bloc & Bell T0828ZH
>  Don't know the guy. This appeared in the monthly corvair club newsletter. 
>You can call him direct for info.
>Jerry Berge  (320) 684-2657
>
>  I believe he is in Minneapolis, MN
>Pat Driscoll
>Saint Paul, MN 55102
>patric...@usfamily.net
>
>
>
>-- http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! 
>--
>___
>to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
>please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html

_
Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to 
School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx




KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread patrusso
Larry F and Mike T,
 Sorry, Couldn't reply sooner as it was necessary to check out the several
suggestions prompted by your responses. I have Diehl gear 4.062" behind
datum line (leading edge). Everything has checked out as designed or
planned. I must confess that my plane is not exactly a KR,... I took my old
1970's KR plan, added 14" to boat length, two inches to motor mount lenght,
moved pilot and wing back an inch, narrowed the fuselage to 24 ", and
balanced the rudder and elevator,...most of  this  for aesthetic
purposes...to get a cleaner, longer line.
   I am working from a fairly bumpy grass field where the grass was pretty
high at the tie down. To complicate this, my wheel chocks  lock the wheels
to the ground front and back of the wheels and when brakes are applied it
was difficult to raise the tail by hand.
  Today, (as one of you suggested), I was less timid on the runway, taxi-ing
to 40 mph and of a sudden, the usual rear fuselage noise sunsided and I knew
immediately that I had tail wheel lift off. Bit of a heart flutter there!!!
Still had good directional control. Incidently I bought a pair of roller
blades at a yard sale for a dollar and found that I had eight tail wheels.
The one installed is working well.
   And so it is, oft times the simplest things conspire to delay that  first
flight! Thanks for youe help.
Pat R

- Original Message -
From: "Mike Turner" <aviato...@msn.com>
To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: KR> Engines


> Just curious how far forward of the main spar are your main landing gear?
Have you checked your angle of inscindence on the horz stab. ?
>   Mike Turner
>   - Original Message -
>   From: patrusso<mailto:patru...@sover.net>
>   To: KRnet<mailto:kr...@mylist.net>
>   Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 3:14 PM
>   Subject: Re: KR> Engines
>
>
>   What's happening? Tied tail down with a foot of slack, chocked the wheel
s,
>   ran the engine up to 3000RPM and the tail did not lift,. stick full
>   forward._Rechecked elevator travel, Okay,  redid weight and balance, CG
at
>   forward limit._Got about 5 hours taxi time, up to about  35 MPH, still
not
>   light on the stick. 
>   > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
krnet-le...@mylist.net<mailto:krnet-le...@mylist.net>
>   > please see other KRnet info at
http://www.krnet.org/info.html<http://www.krnet.org/info.html>
>
>
>   ___
>   to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to
krnet-le...@mylist.net<mailto:krnet-le...@mylist.net>
>   please see other KRnet info at
http://www.krnet.org/info.html<http://www.krnet.org/info.html>
> ___
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html




KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Colin & Bev Rainey
I don't know of any engine that goes 2400 hours between overhauls!  That is 
just the stated TBO, not what they do in practice.  In practice they all eat 
valves, develop leaks and problems where half the engine has been replaced by 
the time you get to the 2400 TBO.  The main difference is entry cost and upkeep 
cost. For the initial cost of a Rotax or Lyc you can buy 3 to 5 VW type 
engines, and rebuild them 4 or 5 times for the cost of one rebuild from Lyc 
mech.

Colin & Bev Rainey
KR2(td) N96TA
Sanford, FL
crain...@cfl.rr.com
http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html


KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread patrusso
What's happening? Tied tail down with a foot of slack, chocked the wheels,
ran the engine up to 3000RPM and the tail did not lift,. stick full
forward._Rechecked elevator travel, Okay,  redid weight and balance, CG at
forward limit._Got about 5 hours taxi time, up to about  35 MPH, still not
light on the stick. 
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html




KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Mark Jones
You must have a nose wheelJust kidding.

Mark Jones (N886MJ)
Wales, WI  USA
E-mail me at flyk...@wi.rr.com
Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html


- Original Message - 
From: "patrusso" <patru...@sover.net>
To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: KR> Engines


> What's happening? Tied tail down with a foot of slack, chocked the wheels,
> ran the engine up to 3000RPM and the tail did not lift,. stick full
> forward._Rechecked elevator travel, Okay,  redid weight and balance, CG at
> forward limit._Got about 5 hours taxi time, up to about  35 MPH, still not
> light on the stick. 
> > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
>
> ___
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>





KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Orma
"still not light on the stick."

My aircraft gets light on the stick at 2500.  What is the pitch of your
prop?  Even though mine gets light on the stick at 2500 and I can lift the
tail at 2800, on the roll, it all changes and it wants some speed, but
nothing like 35 MPH.
Orma
Southfield, MI
N110LR celebrating 20 years
To the gathering or bust





KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Orma
You must have a nose wheel

Mark J you are a sick individual, you had better hurry up and fly so that
you can act normal.
Orma
Southfield, MI
N110LR celebrating 20 years
To the gathering or bust





KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Mark Jones
Hey Orma,
Just wait till my Infrared Temp Sensor detects your engine at 800°.  That is
a jet engine you haveright???

Mark Jones (N886MJ)
Wales, WI  USA
E-mail me at flyk...@wi.rr.com
Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html


- Original Message - 
From: "Orma" <o...@aviation-mechanics.com>
To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: KR> Engines


> You must have a nose wheel
>
> Mark J you are a sick individual, you had better hurry up and fly so that
> you can act normal.
> Orma
> Southfield, MI
> N110LR celebrating 20 years
> To the gathering or bust
>
>
>
> ___
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html





KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Orma
"That is a jet engine you haveright???"
Well Mark, it does heat up like a jet, if only I could get it to fly as fast
as a jet.  Well, on second thought it does fly as fast as the turbine KR
that flew a few years back.

Orma
Southfield, MI
N110LR celebrating 20 years
I will fly to the gathering in my KR, Just pray for snow.





KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Mark Jones

- Original Message - 
From: "Orma" 
> I will fly to the gathering in my KR, Just pray for snow.

No Snow Yet!  Please.  But may the gods of coolness be with you.

Mark Jones (N886MJ)
Wales, WI  USA 
E-mail me at flyk...@wi.rr.com
Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at   
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html





KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread jscott.pi...@juno.com

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:40:15 -0400 "Colin & Bev Rainey"
 writes:
> I don't know of any engine that goes 2400 hours between overhauls!  
> That is just the stated TBO, not what they do in practice.  In 
> practice they all eat valves, develop leaks and problems where half 
> the engine has been replaced by the time you get to the 2400 TBO.  
> The main difference is entry cost and upkeep cost. For the initial 
> cost of a Rotax or Lyc you can buy 3 to 5 VW type engines, and 
> rebuild them 4 or 5 times for the cost of one rebuild from Lyc 
> mech.
> 
> Colin & Bev Rainey
> KR2(td) N96TA
> Sanford, FL
> crain...@cfl.rr.com
> http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html


Hmm.  OK, I'll answer up to this one.  Discussing engines seems to be
like discussing religion.   You believe what you believe and to call
your's pretty almost always turns into a case of calling someone elses
baby ugly.  I'll try not to do that.

First misconception.  Out here in the mountains, many Lyc and Cont
engines run well over TBO without ever pulling a cylinder.  They rarely
pull their rated HP as they spend most of their time above 5000'.  Our
rental C-172s typically run 2500 hours between engine swaps and come off
still showing mid to upper 70s for compression and no metals in the oil. 
That is more the norm here, although at low altitudes I'm sure that's the
exception.

I'm running my second Continental engine on my KR.  I picked up a high
time C-85 for $2500 while I was building the plane.  I flew it for 350
hours to finish running it out.  It would be difficult to build any
engine for that kind of $$.  While flying behind the C-85, I kept my eye
and mind open for the right deal on the next engine, not necessarily a
Continental.  I found a low time O-200 out of a C-150 with a damaged
crank for $3500.  It cost me $3000, including a new crank to rebuild. 
The C-85 was donated to a charitable organization as parts, which
generated about the same $$ in tax refunds as the cost to rebuild the
O-200.  Now I'm flying behind an engine that I fully expect to outlast
the airframe.  

Compare the economics.  It doesn't have to cost a fortune to fly behind a
Continental.  Those that say they are too expensive are using that as an
excuse to justify their choice, but in my opinion, the economics don't
necessarily add up.

Ok, I think I did that without being an engine biggot.  If you think I
am, then you might be surprised to find that the other plane I built
after the KR was flying behind a VW.

One last thing that weighs heavily on my mind with my choice of engines. 
I live and fly in the high mountains.  I've had one engine failure at
night and count myself fortunate to be here.  As hot and flat as my KR
lands, I don't ever want to have a forced landing in it.  It's hard to
beat the millions of hours of experience behind a Lycoming or
Continental.  Note that I am not and will not say that any other engine
is inferior.  Only that this is my justification for the engine in my
plane.  

See you in Mt Vernon.

Jeff Scott


Get your name as your email address.
Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!



KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Mike Turner
Just curious how far forward of the main spar are your main landing gear?  Have 
you checked your angle of inscindence on the horz stab. ?   
  Mike Turner
  - Original Message - 
  From: patrusso<mailto:patru...@sover.net> 
  To: KRnet<mailto:kr...@mylist.net> 
  Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 3:14 PM
  Subject: Re: KR> Engines


  What's happening? Tied tail down with a foot of slack, chocked the wheels,
  ran the engine up to 3000RPM and the tail did not lift,. stick full
  forward._Rechecked elevator travel, Okay,  redid weight and balance, CG at
  forward limit._Got about 5 hours taxi time, up to about  35 MPH, still not
  light on the stick. 
  > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to 
krnet-le...@mylist.net<mailto:krnet-le...@mylist.net>
  > please see other KRnet info at 
http://www.krnet.org/info.html<http://www.krnet.org/info.html>


  ___
  to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to 
krnet-le...@mylist.net<mailto:krnet-le...@mylist.net>
  please see other KRnet info at 
http://www.krnet.org/info.html<http://www.krnet.org/info.html>


KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread larry flesner
>  What's happening? Tied tail down with a foot of slack, chocked the wheels,
>  ran the engine up to 3000RPM and the tail did not lift,. stick full
>  forward._Rechecked elevator travel, Okay,  redid weight and balance, CG at
>  forward limit._Got about 5 hours taxi time, up to about  35 MPH, still not
>  light on the stick. 
++

That doesn't sound completely normal but there are too many variables
to give you a logical answer.

Have someone else look at your plans and do a complete W.B.
independent of yours and see if they get the same answer.  Don't
let them see any of your numbers before they start.

What type of gear do you have (Diehl, Grove, retracts, etc) and do
you have a picture posted somewhere?   How far forward of the
wing lead edge are your axles with the KR in the level position?

The tail should come up much easier on the roll as it is primarily
the lift of the main wing that brings the tail up to level.  Anyone 
that doesn't believe that should watch the elevator
movement / location  on a taildragger on takeoff.   Rolling level
on the mains the elevator is very near nuetral.  The center of
lift is close / behind the CG and all forces must be in balance at
flying speeds.  The rudder and elevator are really just large movable
trim tabs.  The horizontal and vertical stabs act as fixed trim tabs.

Larry Flesner 





KR> engines

2008-10-12 Thread Ray Fuenzalida
Just have a question for the group.  I bought 2 Corvair engines from Larry's 
Corvair shop in California.  Then I bought William Wynne's book.  Yeah, I know 
I did it the wrong way.  The problem and question is this: The engines they 
sent me are both 145 cid engines.  One from 1960, one from 1963.  William Wynne 
says you need the 164 cid engines.  They even had the 95 and 110 horse power 
versions, but that didn't matter.  After the rebuild they were all even.  But, 
what about the 145 cid engines?  Are they equally usable?  Will the horsepower 
reduction be an insurmountable problem?  The bores seem to be the same, can I 
just increase the stroke?  Have I just been screwed?  Do I now own 2 big paper 
weights?  The annoying part is that Larry, with whom I spoke personally, knew 
that I wanted them for an aviation application.
Already sent a note to William Wynne and am awaiting his response.  In the 
interim, any ideas?

Also, the prop bank is a great idea.  I suggest we take up a collection at the 
gathering.  

See you in about a month.
Ray


-
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!


KR> Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Colin & Bev Rainey
Netters
I have 2 Subaru engines, one that all the machining has been done to ready for 
reassembly, the other straight out of the car, EA81 variety.  $100 dollars 
takes both, plus shipping to you.  If interested contact me off the net.

Colin & Bev Rainey
KR2(td) N96TA
Sanford, FL
crain...@cfl.rr.com
http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html


KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread intrepid...@juno.com
> Eric J Pitts  writes:
> Here is one more to look at, it is a Solar T-62 Turbine.
> The BD5T is using this engine, look at www.bd-micro.com
> can get up to 150hp.
> Power Rating (Sea Level)  95 SHP @ 6,000 RPM  
> Fuel Consumption (Max Power)  108 lbs./hr.  
> Weight  75 lbs.> Length  27 in.  
> Height  16.5 in.> Width  13 in.  
> Fuel Types  Jet A, JP4-JP5  
> Oil Types  MIL-L-7808 or MIL-L-23699  

  Nice, but 108 lbs/hr. is about 18-gallons per hour ?
  Turbine downsides: fuel consumption, cost of engine,
  weight and complexity of a PSRU.

  At the other end of the $pectrum is the good ol'
  McCulloch O-100-1 "drone" engine:

  Max. Power  72-hp at 4100 RPM (Direct drive to prop)
  Fuel Consumption (max power)  6 gph  (36 lbs./hr.)
  Weight  83 lbs.
  Length   27 in.
  Width   27 in.
  Fuel  115/145-octane
  Oil Type  S.A.E. 60  ( 10 to 1 ratio in the fuel )  

  Downsides: storing pre-mixed fuel vs. complexity
  and reliability of an in-line fuel/oil mixer.

  ...everything is a compromise...

  a r tw/ "Turbine Taste, Mac' Budget"

  Art Cacella   1970 American AA-1  N6155L  "Dinkie"
  1972 KR-1 Plans, still not started 
  ( but four metal homebuilts underway )
  Winston-Salem, NC


The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!


KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Eric J Pitts
Here is one more to look at, it is a Solar T-62 Turbine. The BD5T is
using this engine, look at www.bd-micro.com can get up to 150hp.

Power Rating (Sea Level)  95 SHP @ 6,000 RPM  
Fuel Consumption (Max Power)  108 lbs./hr.  
Weight  75 lbs.  
Length  27 in.  
Height  16.5 in.  
Width  13 in.  
Fuel Types  Jet A, JP4-JP5  
Oil Types  MIL-L-7808 or 
MIL-L-23699  

Eric Pitts
TH Indiana
KR2 plans in hand



The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!


KR>Engines - Certified versus auto

2008-10-12 Thread larry flesner
 When lyco and
>cont made engines magnetos were very unreliable so they put 2 on incase one
>failed. With 2 magnetos you have to have two wiring harnesses and two spark
>plugs. 
>David Mikesell



Some of the early low horsepower, smaller cube aircraft engines
only used one mag.  When the bore of the engines increased
above a certian size they needed a second mag and plug to get
an efficent fuel burn on the power stroke.  The flame just would
not span that volume effectivly.  That's the reason you get the
rpm drop during mag checks.  That's also the reason you run
with both mags "on" and don't just save one in case of failure.
The unused plugs may also foul over but let's not even go there.
The old farm tractors ran on just one mag.  Perhaps if they had
used dual mags they might have gotten their crops in faster. :-)

This could be an endless debate.  I suspect that if you did
a + / - column for each system you will end up with a flyable
C.G. with either system.

I was able to fix my wing tank leak (it appears) without having to
cut any wing skins.  I opened the 48" rib at the base, fixed the
leak, and closed it back up.  It cured while I watched the local
University's BB team put another notch in the W column.  They
beat the team picked preseason as #1. They are now 10/2 and
the KR should be flying again in a week or so.Yeee Haaa, let the
good time roll !!  

Larry Flesner
Carterville, Illinois




KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Colin & Bev Rainey
Rather than get mad at the misinformation about engines and technology 
concerning them, which by the way Scott has been stated that way since the 70's 
and never updated, I will instead issue a friendly challenge.  I will be 
willing to bet you that I will fly longer between services, smoother, with less 
maintenance, and 1/4 of the cost and better reliability than your certified 
engine.  The famous college that William Wynne himself attended Embry Riddle is 
proving the concept of both FADEC engine control, and LIQUID cooled diesel 
engines running on Jet A.  They are smoother, more reliable, and eliminate the 
mixture control effectively removing the human error in proper leaning/mixture 
control.  Any engine who poor fix of over heating and detonation is the over 
richening of the air fuel mixture to provide additional cooling is to me poorly 
designed, and receiving the cheapest fix for the problem.  The cylinders are 
not built with tight tolerances, but rather have to provide for massive amounts 
of expansion due to dramatic changes in clearances due to swelling caused by 
heat expansion.  Take any late model engine apart and you will see engine 
honing marks still in the cylinder walls showing negligible wear after over 
100,000 miles of use.  Most Lycs wont even make it to TBO no matter how they 
are taken care of.  But even if you are right on ALL counts Scott, and other 
netters listen up:  if I bought just 1 Lycoming new, I could outfit 10 engines 
like Mark's Corvair for the same money, fly each 500 hours and never use all 
ten before I passed away, effectively never having a catastrophic failure.  You 
all decide for yourself.  Scott, lets see who comes out on top, friendly 
challenge to benefit all and make for an interesting conversation at the 
Gathering!  You up for it?  :o)

Colin & Bev Rainey
KR2(td) N96TA
Sanford, FL
crain...@cfl.rr.com
or crbrn9...@hotmail.com
http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html


KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread ljhus...@wmconnect.com
Here is an email that I received on another group.  Might help you guys in 
this debate.


> > A while back, I posted the result of a cursory look at the accident
> > statistics for aircraft powered by auto engine conversions.   It *was*
an
> > awful shallow pass, and at the time I promised to look into the issue
> > deeper.
> >
> > I have since obtained the NTSB accident databases for the years 1998,
> 1999,
> > and 2000, and am ready to provide more exact figures.
> >
> > The nice thing about the accident databases is that they usually
describe
> > the type of engine that powers the aircraft.  Unfortunately, the FAA
> > registration database is a lot more vague.  A lot homebuilts are merely
> > described as having experimental engines; a number don't even have an
> > entry.  So we can't do the classic "x% of auto engined-airplanes have
> > accidents every year vs. y% Lycont-powered planes."
> >
> > Instead, we can take another tack:  We can catalog the number of each
type
> > of engine in accident aircraft, then take a look at how often a loss of
> > engine power was a factor in the accident.  The figures don't include
> cases
> > where the cause was traced to carburetor ice or the pilot running out of
> > fuel.
> >
> > Presentation of data:
> >
> > The "ENGINE" column describes the general category of the engine, one of
> > four types:
> >
> >  "Certified" Engines include Continentals, Lycomings, Franklins,
Pratt
> > and Whitney, Jacobs, Vendeyev, LOM, and Walter.
> >
> >  "Auto" Engines include those identified as Subarus, Suzukis, Fords,
> > Volkswagens, Revmaster, Chevrolet, GM, Mazda, Honda, Stratus, or NSI.
> >
> > "Non-C/4" are four-cylinder, non-certified, non-auto conversion
> > engines.  They include the Rotax 912 series, the Jabiru, and the
Rotorway.
> >
> > "Two-Stokes" include Rotax 4* and 5* series, Yamahas, KFMs, Hirth,
> 2SI,
> > and Cuyuna.
> >
> > The next column is "ACC".  This is the number of accidents in the
> 1998-2000
> > timeframe that involved each category of engine
> >
> > "PCT" is the percent of the total accidents where that category of
engine
> > was installed.
> >
> > "LOP" are the number of accidents where loss of engine power was
involved.
> >
> > "LOP%" is the percentage of cases where accidents involving aircraft
> > mounting that category of engine suffered an engine-related loss of
power.
> >
> > -
> > The Results:
> >
> > ENGINE ACC PCT LOPLOP%
> > -- --- --- ---
> > Certified  332 51%  57 17%
> > Auto95 15%  27 28%
> > Non-C/4 70 11%  13 19%
> > Two-Strokes13421%  46 34%
> >
> > Of primary interest here, I think is the percentage of accidents where a
> > loss of engine power occured...17% for certified-engine-powered planes,
> vs.
> > 28% for auto-engine conversions.  Two-strokes were even higher; almost a
> > third of their accidents involved a power failure.
> >
> > It's interesting to note the non-certified four strokes are doing
> > practically as well as the certified engines.  The Rotax 912/914 series
> > alone does even better... a LOP% value of 13%.
> >
> > An interesting side note:  Lycomings outnumbered Continentals by nearly
> > four to one


KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Scott Cable
Colin,
 You saying that the I gave out misinformation is simply not true.  I was 
speaking in general terms about general aviation.  Including, but not limited 
to the KR or same class of aircraft.  For instance, A Kr or similar aircraft 
that is limited to only light aerobatics, could care less about about out of 
plane thrust loads imposed by aerobatic manuvers.

Show me me one auto-conversion engine that is rated for aerobatics.  They don't 
exist.
Not the VW, Corvair, Subaru.  Show me at Experimental aircraft, that is rated 
for Aerobatics, they all use certified aircraft engines.
Why is that?  Because a automobile conversion crankshaft cannot handle 
asymetrical dynamic thrust loading from the propeller.  The crankshaft would 
break, and you'd pass up the fan on the way down.  Show me one auto conversion 
that's rated for IFR.
Again, there is none.

I worked for several years for GM Powertrain.  I have first hand knowledge and 
hands on, real life experience in Automotive engine design.
I also have better than 15 years experience in aircraft design, including jet 
engine design.

Would that electronically controlled engine work well in place of a certified 
aero-engine?
Absolutely NOT. The engine program I worked certainly had impressive power, 
along with light weight.  It was equipped with 6 bolt main bearing caps, dual 
overhead cams operating 4 valves per cylinder, direct fuel injection, and 
electonically controlled camshaft timing.  Sounds like a pretty advanced design 
doesn't it?

Although this 6 cylinder had all of these features, it would never work well in 
an aircraft.
the 6 bolt main bearings support a cast crankshaft, with miniscule low drag 
bearings.  Although the block was cast aluminum, it was water cooled.  Would 
you fly behind an engine like this?  It made 320 horsepower out of 3.2 Litres.  
Engine weight was around 290 lbs.
It would never fly because it only is available as an optional power upgrade to 
the Cadillac CTS, and SAAB 9 Turbo. It would be way too expensive to purchase 
used, let alone convert for aero use.  Would you fly behind a cast crankshaft?
Would you rely solely on non-redundant flight essential systems?
Why are these designs still being used since the 70's?  Because they do their 
application specific job, simply, reduntantly where needed, and nobody has come 
up with a cost effective, weight effective flight safety designed alternative.

I remember when everyone jumped on the Subaru Bandwagon, only to discover:
The engine was heavy, had horrible reliablity, it was finickey, and some of the 
best minds in aviation couldn't match the reliability of an aero engine, or 
even get it to run past 200 hours.

For my personnal application, I had planned on putting in a turbocharged 
Corvair for my KR-2S.  By the time I bought Nickies, fabricated all of the 
necesisary exhaust and induction and ignition systems, oiling system  and 
essentially everything under the cowling.  I could have bought a brand new 
aero-engine. 

Some layperson would have inevitably asked:  Why didn't you just buy an 
aircraft engine?

  So how many of these FADEC controlled engines are you going to buy Colin?
None, because they haven't been certified yet. and you can't buy them yet.
Where are you going to buy 10 Corvairs?  So how long would you think it would 
take you to build 10 Corvairs?  How many more "parts engines" would you have to 
buy to complete your 10 flight worthy corvairs?  You'd spend the rest of your 
medical searching, cleaning, and fabricating parts. 
Inevitably some layperson would ask you:
Why didn't you just buy a real  airplane engine.  Wasn't the Corvair Banned by 
Ralph Nader?
70's technology in the new Lycoming / Honda?
70's Technology in the New Franklin 220?
70's Technology in the Jabiru?

Colin, ther's 70 year old technology and older in every single internal 
combustion engine ever built...

You're making your argument based on the Corvair engine?  It never saw 
production after 1970.

 Here's a challenge for you Colin:  Show us how you're going to create 
electronic engine controls for your KR or other private general aviation 
aircraft, that's better than the 70's technology that are in flight rated 
hardware.  I'm positive that would make some interesting conversation at the 
next gathering also.

Colin & Bev Rainey  wrote:

Rather than get mad at the misinformation about engines and technology 
concerning them, which by the way Scott has been stated that way since the 70's 
and never updated, I will instead issue a friendly challenge.

 I will be willing to bet you that I will fly longer between services, 
smoother, with less maintenance, and 1/4 of the cost and better reliability 
than your certified engine.

USING AN ENGINE THAT NEVER SAW 1970 FOR PRODUCTION...

YOU WON'T DO AEROBATICS AND YOU WON'T DO IFR WITH THAT ENGINE EITHER... The 
famous college that William Wynne himself attended Embry Riddle is proving the 
concept of both 

KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Larry A Capps
Please, How on earth can you compare 332-Certified Engines, to a miserly
70-Non-C/4 Engines!

Maybe we can have a fair representation of engine specific performance
issues, based equal numbers of engines for the group(s), not shown in the
Original Message.  This smacks of Rotax advertisement.  Lets take a look at
an equal data pool provided by Certified vs. Non-C/4 engines, shall we.

Based on the numbers provided, if one extrapolated to equal quantities of
(Cert engs vs Non-C/4 engs) engines:

ENGINE ACC PCT LOPLOP%
--
Certified   332   51% 57 17%

Non-C/4332  52%  6219%


Beam me up,

Larry A Capps
Naperville, IL

"Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains"





-Original Message-

Here is an email that I received on another group.  Might help you guys in
this debate.

The Results:

ENGINE ACC PCT LOPLOP%
  --  ------ ---   
Certified   332   51%  57 17%
Auto  95  15%  27 28%
Non-C/4  70  11%  13 19%
Two-Strokes  134  21%  46 34%

Of primary interest here, I think is the percentage of accidents where a
loss of engine power occured...17% for certified-engine-powered planes,
vs.
 28% for auto-engine conversions.

It's interesting to note the non-certified four strokes are doing
practically as well as the certified engines.

The Rotax 912/914 series
alone does even better... a LOP% value of 13%.



KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Dean Cooper
LJHusky1 wrote:

The Results:
> > >
> > > ENGINE ACC PCT LOPLOP%
> > > -- --- --- ---
> > > Certified  332 51%  57 17%
> > > Auto95 15%  27 28%
> > > Non-C/4 70 11%  13 19%
> > > Two-Strokes13421%  46 34%

I do not have enough knowledge in this field to enter the debate, but felt
it necessary to state the obvious.  This is good information at a high
level, but really doesn't support either side simply because "Loss of Power"
is far too vague to explain which is a better engine design.  For example,
what about fuel starvation?  This has to explain a number of the accidents
and may nothing to do with the engine itself.  Also, It's unclear from the
email if the study only looked at experimental aircraft.  Obviously, when
you have Joe Homebuilder building the plane in his garage, it is going to be
subject to inconsistent results.  Some builders will build the firewall
forward wrong and show up on an NTSB report.  If the study is not specific
to experimentals, then I would expect these results, simply because I
suspect you will have a higher number of accidents in training aircraft
(certified engines), due to pilot error, which drives your numerator up and
your percentage for loss of power accidents down.  Another obvious point,
the plans call for an auto conversion (VW) engine...

This should not be taken to be an attack on the author, Just stating the
obvious (at least to me)  :-)

ps.  What about a prop strike which results in loss of power  :-)

Dean Cooper
Jacksonville, FL
Email me at dean_coo...@bellsouth.net
See my KR project at www.geocities.com/djramccoop1/KR2_Home.html




KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Steve and Lori McGee
I agree.  On the statistics side for the conclusion chosen these numbers
mean nothing.  You have to get a lot more specific.  This is like saying
there are a lot more car accidents than motorcycles.  No why, what is the
percentage on the road, throw in the driver learning curve, yada yada yada
.

- Original Message -
From: "Dean Cooper" <dean_coo...@bellsouth.net>
To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: KR>Engines


> LJHusky1 wrote:
>
> The Results:
> > > >
> > > > ENGINE ACC PCT LOPLOP%
> > > > -- --- --- ---
> > > > Certified  332 51%  57 17%
> > > > Auto95 15%  27 28%
> > > > Non-C/4 70 11%  13 19%
> > > > Two-Strokes13421%  46 34%
>
> I do not have enough knowledge in this field to enter the debate, but felt
> it necessary to state the obvious.  This is good information at a high
> level, but really doesn't support either side simply because "Loss of
Power"
> is far too vague to explain which is a better engine design.  For example,
> what about fuel starvation?  This has to explain a number of the accidents
> and may nothing to do with the engine itself.  Also, It's unclear from the
> email if the study only looked at experimental aircraft.  Obviously, when
> you have Joe Homebuilder building the plane in his garage, it is going to
be
> subject to inconsistent results.  Some builders will build the firewall
> forward wrong and show up on an NTSB report.  If the study is not specific
> to experimentals, then I would expect these results, simply because I
> suspect you will have a higher number of accidents in training aircraft
> (certified engines), due to pilot error, which drives your numerator up
and
> your percentage for loss of power accidents down.  Another obvious point,
> the plans call for an auto conversion (VW) engine...
>
> This should not be taken to be an attack on the author, Just stating the
> obvious (at least to me)  :-)
>
> ps.  What about a prop strike which results in loss of power  :-)
>
> Dean Cooper
> Jacksonville, FL
> Email me at dean_coo...@bellsouth.net
> See my KR project at www.geocities.com/djramccoop1/KR2_Home.html
>
>
>
> ___
> see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
>
>




KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Colin & Bev Rainey
Scott & netters,
Good points well taken.  However some are distortions, and some are responses 
to my miscommunications, which I will clarify now.

First, most cars end up on the roadside not because of bad design or sudden 
failure, but neglect by the operator of the "check engine" light or "service 
engine soon" light.  I have driven down the road and seen daily the 
illumination of these advance warnings of parts showing problems, with the 
operator continuing on as if nothing needs attending to. In 15 years of 
drivability repair, I have lost count of how many customers came into the shop 
telling me that weeks to months ago, the problem indicator lamp was lit, but 
nothing appeared to be wrong so they kept driving. Only once it became a 
problem did they attempt to have it fixed.  Such things would not be allowed to 
be ignored if used in an aircraft because the regs would render that aircraft 
as un-airworthy.  It would have to be fixed.  Secondly, pilots would not fly 
these aircraft with such warnings on without having them corrected, knowing the 
potential consequences.  Cars are not faced with such negative alternatives.

I agree Scott that in many cases the auto crankshaft was not designed for 
such loads.  The Corvair engine, and VW engine are two examples where there are 
acceptable applications for their use with direct drive.  This has been done 
for almost as long if not longer than the stable of Lycs & Contis.  Great 
Plains, and several other companies encourage the use of PSRU units on most 
every application of an auto engine, for the added insurance of reliability.  
Belted Air Power has a very successful V6 & V8 PSRU for use with the Chevy 4.3, 
& 5.7 engines, which completely remove the foreign loads from the crankshaft, 
and maintain loads that were designed into such engines.  Where people mess up 
using these engines is inadequate cooling, and attempting to modify the 
performance beyond reliable limits for cars, much less aircraft.  
Conservatively built, as William Wynne teaches the building of the Corvair 
engine, any auto engine can be matched to a PSRU, and turned at an appropriate 
cruise rpm for good longevity and performance.  Similar to the turbine powered 
turboprop aircraft, but with better affordability.  The Jet A burning aircraft 
engines under evaluation here, and already certified in Europe, started life as 
an AUTO diesel engine, and was successfully converted.

I agree with Scott that using the CTS or Northstar engine would be a 
nightmare, unless you have a large aircraft, and larger budget!  Their design 
does not lend itself to easy maintenance and complex programming makes 
practical upkeep nearly impossible.  However, utilizing a simple electronic 
ignition module distributor, which has a simple transistor trigger to replace 
the points gains one a great deal of more consistent operation. I do not 
encourage the use of multi-point fuel injection for the unknowing, simply 
because it has alot of extras that need to be dealt with.  If a second ignition 
system is desired, one can drill out the heads as mine are on the VW, or adapt 
a Nissan or Ford 8 plug head to their application, and have dual ignitions.  
Redundancy is as easy as having a second dedicated battery to just the ignition 
system.  Spark advance and smoother running, more economical operation, and 
better performance for the dollar are good enough reasons for me to stay with 
auto engines.  Just the purchase of one alternator/regulator combination for a 
Lycoming, (which by the way is Motorcraft, same as what is on their trucks of 
similar years, except for the yellow tag, & voltage settings)  and I can buy 
all the parts necessary to completely rebuild an auto engine.

Given apples to apples, if the same care and attention is given to the auto 
conversion that certified engines receive, there will be no contest: the auto 
engine will far outperform the aviation version.  This is even supported by 
such companies as Mattituck who openly reports manufacturing defects of design 
to the original O-360, which they have designed out in their experimental 
version of the O-360 kit engine.  The only reason that Honda, Ford, Chrysler, 
and GM left the aviation engine markets after once having been there is due to 
the major hoops that must be jumped through for certification versus such a 
thin market.  In short, it was not profitable to stay, not that they could not 
design good engines, or didn't have good engines.

I simply want all netters to see both sides and not have a narrowly 
presented viewpoint concerning the use of auto engines in aircraft, but rather 
see the true strong points and short comings that each has.  My opinions.

Colin & Bev Rainey
KR2(td) N96TA
Sanford, FL
crain...@cfl.rr.com
or crbrn9...@hotmail.com
http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html


KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Scott Cable
Colin, Thank-you, I will respond to your additional
comments below in CAPS- for the sake of Clarity, not
SHOUTING!  This dialog is intended to be friendly, not
Tense...
--- Colin & Bev Rainey  wrote:
> Scott & netters,
> Good points well taken.  However some are
> distortions, and some are responses to my
> miscommunications, which I will clarify now.

In 15 years of drivability repair, I have lost
> count of how many customers came into the shop
> telling me that weeks to months ago, the problem
> indicator lamp was lit, but nothing appeared to be
> wrong so they kept driving. Only once it became a
> problem did they attempt to have it fixed.

COLIN, ALTHOUGH I AGREE WITH YOU IN PART OF WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING HERE, THE FAILURE MODE OF ELECTRONICS
MAKE THE USE OF SUCH DEVICES IN AIRCRAFT UNDESIRABLE. 
THEY WORK PERFECTLY RIGHT UP TO THE NANOSECOND BEFORE
THEY FAIL.

  Such things would not be allowed to be ignored if
used in an aircraft because the regs would render that
> aircraft as un-airworthy.
  It would have to be fixed.  Secondly, pilots would
not fly these aircraft with such warnings on without
having them corrected, knowing the potential
consequences. 
IN EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT, WHO IS GOING TO PUT A CHECK
ENGINE LIGHT ON THE PANEL?  WHAT REQUIRES SOMEONE TO
DO SO?  MOST BUILDERS WOULD EITHER OPT OUT, OR SIMPLY
NOT INCORPORATE SUCH A LIGHT INTO THE PANEL.  WHEN THE
COMPUTER DECIDES TO ENTER THE LIMP-IN MODE, THAT
ENGINE IS MOST LIKELY TO STOP MAKING ENOUGH POWER TO
KEEP THE AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE.  
> 
> I agree Scott that in many cases the auto
> crankshaft was not designed for such loads.  The
> Corvair engine, and VW engine are two examples where
> there are acceptable applications for their use with
> direct drive.
 HOWEVER, NEITHER ENGINE IS APPROVED FOR AEROBATIC
USE, AND I KNOW THE CORVAIR IS NOT APPROVED, NOR
RECOMMENDED FOR IFR USE.
ONE INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:  THE VW BOXER ENGINE WAS
DESIGNED BY DR. FERDINAND PORSCHE FROM: AN AIRCRAFT
ENGINE.  IT'S NOT SURPRISING TO ME WHY THAT ENGINE HAS
BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL AS AN EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ENGINE.
  This has been done for almost as long
> if not longer than the stable of Lycs & Contis. 
> Great Plains, and several other companies encourage
> the use of PSRU units on most every application of
> an auto engine, for the added insurance of
> reliability.  Belted Air Power has a very successful
> V6 & V8 PSRU for use with the Chevy 4.3, & 5.7
> engines, which completely remove the foreign loads
> from the crankshaft, and maintain loads that were
> designed into such engines.
COLIN, AGAIN I PARTIALLY AGREE, HOWEVER WITH A PSRU,
YOU ADD ADDITIONAL WEIGHT, BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY
HAVE ADDED ADDITIONAL FAILURE POINTS.  BELTS ARE
NOTORIUS FOR STRIPPING AND BREAKING. AGAIN, EVEN THE
PSRU's ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR AEROBATIC MANUVUERS
  Where people mess up
> using these engines is inadequate cooling, and
> attempting to modify the performance beyond reliable
> limits for cars, much less aircraft.  Conservatively
> built, as William Wynne teaches the building of the
> Corvair engine, any auto engine can be matched to a
> PSRU, and turned at an appropriate cruise rpm for
> good longevity and performance.  Similar to the
> turbine powered turboprop aircraft, but with better
> affordability.  The Jet A burning aircraft engines
> under evaluation here, and already certified in
> Europe, started life as an AUTO diesel engine, and
> was successfully converted.
> 
> I agree with Scott that using the CTS or
> Northstar engine would be a nightmare, unless you
> have a large aircraft, and larger budget!  Their
> design does not lend itself to easy maintenance and
> complex programming makes practical upkeep nearly
> impossible.  However, utilizing a simple electronic
> ignition module distributor, which has a simple
> transistor trigger to replace the points gains one a
> great deal of more consistent operation.
AGAIN AS WILLIAM WYNNE SUGGESTS, THE FAILURE MODE OF
THE ELECTRONICS MAKES THIS OPTION LESS THAN
DESIREABLE.
THERE ARE GPU ENGINES RUNNING OIL RIG / OIL PUMPING
STATIONS THAT HAVE TRANSISTORIZED MAGNETOS, BUT LOOK
AT THE APPLICATION, IF THE ELECTRONICS SUDDENLY STOP
WORKING, PEOPLE DON'T DIE... IT'S NON-FLIGHT HARDWARE.
 I do not encourage the use of multi-point fuel
injection for the unknowing, simply because it has
alot of extras that need to be dealt with.  If a
second ignition system is desired, one can drill out
the heads as mine are on the VW, or adapt a Nissan or
Ford 8 plug
head to their application, and have dual ignitions.
  AGAIN, I PARTIALLY AGREE, DUAL PLUGS HOWEVER ARE
ONLY A START.  WHAT ABOUT THE REST?  DO THE IGNITION
SYSTEMS HAVE A SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE?  FOR INSTANCE
A SINGLE DISTRIBUTOR CAP AND ROTOR?  IF SO, YOU ARE
BACK TO A SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE.
> Redundancy is as easy as having a second dedicated
> battery to just the ignition system.
COLIN, NOT SO QUICK, AGAIN, REDUNDANT SYSTEMS ARE
COMPLETELY INDEPENDANT OF 

KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Colin & Bev Rainey
Scott & netters,
I hope all have enjoyed and more importantly gained from this 
debate/discussion.  I don't see Scott & I at odds concerning engines but rather 
applying our different types of experience to our craft in the hopes of making 
the safest aircraft possible.  Both Scott & I have fallen prey to attempting to 
discuss a very complicated subject in limited space, so as not to bore or 
overwhelm everyone else, but also dominate it.  I hope some of the whys' 
everyone has have been answered by one or the other of us, or at least prompted 
those who still have questions to research them instead of giving up on their 
dreams/goals.  Scott correctly points out some things in my last post, which 
for the sake of space I over simplified for the discussion.  As all builders, 
Scott included have discovered, whenever changes are made the snowball begins 
rolling and hopefully stops before the money runs out!  I am glad that Scott 
pointed out that a poorly designed cowling/air passage system will destroy even 
a certified engine for all its claims of endurance and tolerance, which would 
be the same outcome given an auto conversion.  None should take the powerplant 
lightly, and any changes, additions, subtractions, or modifications should be 
performed with the same deliberate testing and design analysis as one would if 
they were designing a new airframe.  Installing an auto conversion that is a 
Winston-Cup short track engine in an attempt to gain additional performance 
over a stock O-360 aircraft engine is destined for catastrophe.  But a properly 
designed 4cyl, or V6 engine, rebuilt and inspected with quality parts and 
attention to detail, in the same manner as the A would for the aviation 
engine has the same opportunity for success, provided the builder invests the 
appropriate amount of time and testing to prove his installation as sound and 
correct.  I hope that all infer the correct information from this discussion, 
that installation of either type of engine is not to be taken lightly.  The 
information for successful aviation engine installation is readily available 
due to its popularity.  However, the burden of proving an auto engine 
installation is on the builder.  This where the testing period of the initial 
flyoff is so important that a builder truly test the aircraft, not just go 
buzzing around for 40 hours.
Scott pointed out the 8 plug heads of say the Nissan have a single point of 
failure, true: fix: order a crank trigger ignition setup that allows use of an 
independent ignition trigger, coil, and distributor and you have a second 
ignition system.  If I wanted to replace the slick Mag, this is what I would 
do.  I have electronic ignition on the other side of the head.  Adapting a 
slick mag would allow a self supporting back up to the primary ignition, which 
I am in favor of.  This is just one example of what you the builder are 
responsible for developing, that you are paying for in the certified engine.  I 
just personally feel they are way over priced, and choose the alternative 
instead.  You the builder will have to choose for yourself based upon your 
abilities, factory/information support, and budget.
Keep building and fly safe

See ya at the Gathering!
Colin & Bev Rainey
KR2(td) N96TA
Sanford, FL
crain...@cfl.rr.com
or crbrn9...@hotmail.com
http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html


KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Carlos Romero
Scott:
Not trying to be argumentative but it also must be pointed out that most 
certified aircraft engines are also not approved for aerobatics they do 
not have the fuel or oil systems for it.  It also must be pointed out 
that most aircraft type certificated or experimental are also not 
approved for aerobatic use.  So aerobatics alone need not be a 
disqualifying point for any engine.
Also, any engine or almost any engine can be equipped with redundant 
ignition systems.  So, if I don't need aerobatics and have dual 
independent ignition I am probably as safe in my corvair as you are in 
your lycosaur.  In fact I think there are some lycoming engines that 
have a crankshaft failure rate that is higher than the corvairs. 
I do agree that the "sudden failure" behavior of some electronics seems 
to make them undesireable, but we are now using fadec (full authority 
digital control) systems  on many aircraft it is time the experimental / 
homebuilt aircraft community begin to emulate these for pennies on the 
dollar and design redundance in them just like have done on countless 
automotive engine conversions of the past.
Maybe if the legal environment in the USA were more conducive to 
innovation  the aircraft engine manufacturers would not be offering 
scarcely improved 1947 technology at outrageous prices forcing us to 
look elsewhere.
my .02
Carlos




KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread ronev...@cox.net
Netters:
 This has been the best discussion I've read since joining the KR Net.  Now 
I would like to add my 2 cents.  I don't think I am as knowledgeable in the 
realm of engines as some, but I do have one advantage:  I'm flying a KR with a 
modern auto converstion.  After 7,000 hours and professional flying I can say, 
I have never flown an airplane that is as much fun as my KR-2s with Subaru 
EJ-22.  Aside from the fun factor, I would like to add 2 points:  1) my 
airplane has a trouble light on the instrument panel that identifies the 
malfuncion.  2) My PSRU has TWO belts.  
 And, I would like to add...pilot error, (usually involving fuel starvation 
or mismanagement), is the major cause of aircraft accidents.  

Ron Vogt



KR>Engines - Certified versus automotive conversions

2008-10-12 Thread Serge F. Vidal
I truly did not know automotive conversions were an insurance problem. Sorry
for you, guys.

I think people tend to be a little bit personal on that engine debate. Hey,
it's experimental aviation! Do as you please, and let the others do as they
please! Just make your own opinion, and make your aircraft unique!

Let me give you my rationale.

"Certified" does not mean the best, or the most reliable, or the most
economical, solution was applied. It simply means that no obvious hazard was
found at the time of certification.

Yes, aircraft engines have specific requirements. Yes, standard automotive
engines do not meet all of these requirements, especially the redundancy
principle (no single failure must lead to catastrophic failure). Does it
mean that the 1930s technology they are based on is better than current
automotive technology? Nope, it means there is no market today to justify
the cost of designing and certifying something better. Does it mean that
automotive engines can't be safely converted? Nope, simply that it takes
some serious engineering to do it.

I personally know the consultant who wrote the certification application of
the Renault turbo-diesel engine (aimed at the professional aviation market,
so still not cheap enough for us). His biggest problem was not engine
failure rate, but... to prove that the engine could be cut at will!

When I bought ZS-WEC, it was VW powered. Same technology basically as the
Lycos and Cont's, but with a huge improvement: the very unreliable, tricky,
finnicky and expensive ignition system called "magnetos" had been replaced
with SOLID-STATE electronic ignition. Result: 400 hours without a glitch. I
don't trust magnetos, having had my share of magnetos failures and incidents
(I don't remember having had an ignition failure in a car in 18 years, by
the way), and I feel much, much safer with a solid state electronic system.
The ignition pick-ups were redundant, so only the coils and spark plugs were
not. And of course, the electrical system has been well thought!

Then, I started wanting more power, and I got myself a reasonably improved
VW engine: 2.4 liter instead of 2.0 liter. I did not want a bigger one,
because I want reliable power, not hot rods! This is where I installed a
fully dual redundant solid state electronic ignition system. No single
failure can lead to catastrophic failure, save for the carburetor, but I am
told that Lycomings and Continentals are like that too.

This, coupled with a decent, redundant, well protected battery system, would
probably be certifiable. And I see no reason why it would be less reliable
than a certified engine, quite the contrary.

I am happy the solution I have, and even more happy with its cost.

Now, what I really dream of, is a 4-seater, twin engine plane, powered with
two state-of-the-art turbo-diesel engines, burning 5 liters an hour of
Jet-A1 each!, all that for the price of 1 Lycoming engine... and I know it's
technically feasible.

Serge Vidal
KR2 ZS-WEC
Tunis, Tunisia




KR>Engines - Certified versus automotive conversions

2008-10-12 Thread larry flesner

>Yes, aircraft engines have specific requirements. Yes, standard automotive
>engines do not meet all of these requirements, especially the redundancy
>principle (no single failure must lead to catastrophic failure). 
>Serge Vidal
=

REALITY CHECK...

Beyond the dual mags, harness, and plugs, the aircraft engine has
no advantage over any other engine when it comes to redundancy.

Loose a connecting rod, bearing, piston, crank, cylinder, oil line,
cam, carb, engine control cables, etc., etc., etc., and ANY engine 
is reduced to a weighted object bolted to the airframe that will help 
keep the W.& B. correct and the aircraft controlable until you reach 
the landing/crash site.

The only true redundancy is to fly a twin engine aircraft and that
opens a whole new can of worms.

Pick an engine that you are comfortable flying behind so you can
enjoy the flight hours you get until it someday fails and do your
best to postpone that event as long as possible.  I've been lucky
in that with nearly 1000 flight hours I've not had to deal with that
situation but, if I continue to fly, I'm sure some day I will.  I can
only hope it will be a very unexciting story for me to tell my friends. :-)

Larry Flesner
Carterville, Illinois






KR>Engines - Certified versus automotive conversions

2008-10-12 Thread David Mikesell
I usually just read but I have to say something now. I have been in aviation
my entire life, mostly in helicopters for the army...automotive engines
are a lot better choice and they don't need redunant systems. When lyco and
cont made engines magnetos were very unreliable so they put 2 on incase one
failed. With 2 magnetos you have to have two wiring harnesses and two spark
plugs. Modern automotive engines use a electronic ignition that takes years
of abuse and hundred of thousands of miles with no maintenance at
all.you never work on your ignition system all you do is change
the wires and plugs and for the most part they work flawlessly. If you look
at it realistically milllions of people operate their car daily, and really
abuse it compared to the operation of a aircraft engine, and it never needs
maintenance..automotive engines are alot more reliable than people
give them credit forand since I take care of several cessna's,
beeches, stearman and a p51 and have been doing this most of my life i got a
pretty good look at the whole picture.

David Mikesell
23597 N. Hwy 99
Acampo, CA 95220
209-609-8774
skyguy...@skyguynca.com
www.skyguynca.com
- Original Message - 
From: "larry flesner" <fles...@midwest.net>
To: <serge.vi...@ate-international.com>; "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: KR>Engines - Certified versus automotive conversions


>
> >Yes, aircraft engines have specific requirements. Yes, standard
automotive
> >engines do not meet all of these requirements, especially the redundancy
> >principle (no single failure must lead to catastrophic failure).
> >Serge Vidal
> =
>
> REALITY CHECK...
>
> Beyond the dual mags, harness, and plugs, the aircraft engine has
> no advantage over any other engine when it comes to redundancy.
>
> Loose a connecting rod, bearing, piston, crank, cylinder, oil line,
> cam, carb, engine control cables, etc., etc., etc., and ANY engine
> is reduced to a weighted object bolted to the airframe that will help
> keep the W.& B. correct and the aircraft controlable until you reach
> the landing/crash site.
>
> The only true redundancy is to fly a twin engine aircraft and that
> opens a whole new can of worms.
>
> Pick an engine that you are comfortable flying behind so you can
> enjoy the flight hours you get until it someday fails and do your
> best to postpone that event as long as possible.  I've been lucky
> in that with nearly 1000 flight hours I've not had to deal with that
> situation but, if I continue to fly, I'm sure some day I will.  I can
> only hope it will be a very unexciting story for me to tell my friends.
:-)
>
> Larry Flesner
> Carterville, Illinois
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html



KR>engines

2008-10-12 Thread Ray Fuenzalida
Just a question for the group.  It may be premature (since I have a long way to 
go), but I noticed a Lycoming 0 145 for sale on Ebay.  Would that be an 
acceptable power plant for a KR2S?  It is a 65 horsepower and weighs about 165 
pounds.  Any thoughts?
Ray


-
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing


KR>engines

2008-10-12 Thread Brant Hollensbe
Hi Ray,

The lycoming O-145 engine with its 145 cu. inches of displacement is a
possiblity.  It is known for being a much smoother running engine that the
A-65 Continintal engine.  And  thought both engines are rated at 65 HP on
take off, the Continental actually produces more HP inflight because of its
171 cu. inches  displacement.  You will find new parts for the O-145 are
rare to say the least  and are priced like all certified aircraft engine
parts, EXPENSIVE.   When making an engine choise you must compair HP,
reliablity, weight, cost, parts availiblity, and any other factor you feel
is important.  Good luck, on your decision for an engine.

Brant Hollensbe
bhollen...@mchsi.com
West Des Moines, IA



KR>engines

2008-10-12 Thread Mike Turner
I've got a 0-145 lyc and the overhaul manual. There are three types of the 
0-145 a,b and c models. The a and b models are rated 65hp at 2500rpm. The c 
model rated 75hp at 3200rpm. The only difference between b and c models is that 
the c has an internal reduction gear that reduces the prop speed from 3200 to 
arround 2100 I think ??(I don't have the manual with me-- doing this from 
memeroy which ain't too good lately). I think the manual said weight with 
carb--mags ect.. is 183lbs not counting a starter. I have a b model-- the 2 
mags by themselves weight 15 lbs. I think it's just too heavy for a kr2. I'm 
still undesided what engine I will use on mine. I plan to build everything I 
can without the engine, do a w/b then deside on engine type. At the moment I'm 
leaning toward the EJ22 suberue or the corvair.

 Mike Turner
  - Original Message - 
  From: Ray Fuenzalida 
  To: kr...@mylist.net 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 4:08 PM
  Subject: KR>engines


  Just a question for the group.  It may be premature (since I have a long way 
to go), but I noticed a Lycoming 0 145 for sale on Ebay.  Would that be an 
acceptable power plant for a KR2S?  It is a 65 horsepower and weighs about 165 
pounds.  Any thoughts?
  Ray


  -
  Do you Yahoo!?
  New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and 
sharing___
  see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html


KR>engines

2008-10-12 Thread larry flesner
>Just a question for the group.  It may be premature (since I have a long
way to go), but I noticed a Lycoming 0 145 for sale on Ebay.  Would that be
an acceptable power plant for a KR2S?  It is a 65 horsepower and weighs
about 165 pounds.  Any thoughts?
>Ray
+++

Unless you are going to build a bare bones 500 pound KR you 
will want more power.  A friend of mine had an early T Craft
with a 65 Lyc and it ended up cracking the case.  He installed
a 65 hp Continental and liked it much better.  You can get
that much HP from a more reliable VW and the parts would
be a lot cheaper and easier to find.

Larry Flesner




KR>engines

2008-10-12 Thread Phil Matheson
Just a question for the group.  It may be premature (since I have a long
way to go), but I noticed a Lycoming 0 145 for sale on Ebay.  Would that be
an acceptable power plant for a KR2S?  It is a 65 horsepower and weighs
about 165 pounds.  Any thoughts?
>Ray
-

Ray.
We have a KR in Australia with a Cont engine, it broke a crank in flight,
VERY VERY Expensive to fix.. There are many good VW engines, and the VW
Engine Centre in Australia and the US is no exception.
Well worth a look, 100HP 200 foot lbs of torque gear reduction, Elect
ignition, Can get fuel injection now
http://www.vw-engines.com/



Phil Matheson
mathe...@dodo.com.au
VH-PKR ( reserved)
61 3 58833588

See our VW Engines and Home built web page at
http://www.vw-engines.com/
www.homebuilt-aviation.com/



[Fwd: Re: KR>engines]

2008-10-12 Thread Todd Servaes
I forwarded the question about the little Lycoming to KR-2S builder 
Richard Oliver due to his substantial experience with this engine in a 
T-cart. Below find his thoughts:

TS

Jonnie Bradley wrote:

> Todd, can you please forward this to those people inquiring about it?
>
> In reference to the Lycoming 0-145B-2 engine, I have spent about 200 
> hours behind the prop of this engine in a 1940 Taylorcraft.  The 
> engine block and cylinder sleeves are cast together and made of cast 
> iron.  Although my engine was zero time and had been built by El Reno 
> Aviation in Oklahoma (probably the most knowledgable people on this 
> engine and recommended by Lycoming directly) the engine itself is 
> unreliable and there were many reasons manufacturing of it was 
> discontinued in 1948.  The engine was notorious for having problems 
> with the valve seats in the aluminum heads.  I personally had three 
> exhaust valve seats come loose in flight which jams the exhaust valve 
> wide open, therefore running on three cylinders.  It was also fitted 
> with a small throat, Ma2 Marvel carburetor.  Parts are almost 
> impossible to find for this carburetor.  It was also fitted with 
> Bendix Scintilla (sp?) magnetos, parts also impossible to find.  As 
> far as the starter and generator accessory plate - those parts are 
> rare and difficult to rebuild.  In closing, I had a beautiful, 
> award-winning, pre-war Taylorcraft with it's original O-145 B2.  The 
> engine was a maintenance nightmare.  These engines should be left on 
> the antiques and in the museums, where they belong.
>
> Respectfully, Richard Oliver
>
> Todd Servaes wrote:
>
>> Richard and Bill,
>>
>> I thought that you each for your own reasons might find the message 
>> below from the KRNet entertaining.
>>
>> TS
>>




KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Gavin Donohoe
Hi All,

Well the age old question, Which engine to use for my KR2S???
Here in Australia we have an engine manufacturing facility for light aircraft 
engines called Jabiru, and from all accounts they are first class engines. This 
is what I was at first going to use. However the price is fairly high at just 
over $18000 AUD for a six cylinder 3300 cc model producing 120 hp.
At only  178 lbs in weight they are ideal power plants though a little out of 
my price range !!!
My question is if I go for a VW engine what size do I need for over 100 hp, and 
can I get a kit of accessories for it, and build an engine from the wrecking 
yard to fit them to???  Which model VW do I need?  What about Corvair engines 
for Australia ( we don't have them here ) How would I get one over here and 
what's available to help me build one??? How much are they second hand, and are 
there any left of the correct model for modification??  Hows the weight of an 
O200 conti compare to these options ?

Thanks 
Gavin   


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/2003


KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Dan Heath
Try this site.  I am sure you will find what you are looking for.  Phil
Matheson from Australia includes this link on all his correspondence.

http://www.vw-engines.com/ 

N64KR

Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC

da...@kr-builder.org

See you in Mt. Vernon - 2004 - KR Gathering

See our KR at http://KR-Builder.org - Click on the pic
See our EAA Chapter 242 at http://EAA242.org

---Original Message---

From: KR builders and pilots
List-Post: krnet@list.krnet.org
Date: Thursday, September 25, 2003 4:21:06 AM
To: KR builders and pilots
Subject: KR>Engines

Hi All,

Well the age old question, Which engine to use for my KR2S???
Here in Australia we have an engine manufacturing facility for light
aircraft engines called Jabiru, and from all accounts they are first class
engines. This is what I was at first going to use. However the price is
fairly high at just over $18000 AUD for a six cylinder 3300 cc model
producing 120 hp.
At only 178 lbs in weight they are ideal power plants though a little out of
my price range !!!
My question is if I go for a VW engine what size do I need for over 100 hp,
and can I get a kit of accessories for it, and build an engine from the
wrecking yard to fit them to??? Which model VW do I need? What about Corvair
engines for Australia ( we don't have them here ) How would I get one over
here and what's available to help me build one??? How much are they second
hand, and are there any left of the correct model for modification?? Hows
the weight of an O200 conti compare to these options ?

Thanks
Gavin


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/2003
___
see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html
. 


KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Phil Matheson
Gavin
Contact Ron Slender, VW engines Australia, You will not find a better
engine, you will have to see it to believe it

http://www.vw-engines.com/
www.homebuilt-aviation.com/

Phil Matheson
mathe...@dodo.com.au
VH-PKR ( reserved)
61 3 58833588

See our VW Engines and Home built web page at
http://www.vw-engines.com/
www.homebuilt-aviation.com/



KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Serge F. Vidal
Gavin, here are my 2 cents worth.

The VW engines are called Type 1,2,3, and 4. The Type 4 comes from the VW
Minibus, and the Porshe 914. It comes as either a 1.7 liter, or as a 2
liter. It is the best, for two good reasons: it is the most powerful, and it
is made of a better aluminium alloy, that is less prone to cracks. So, I
strongly recommend a Type 4 in all... cases.

The bad news is the 2 liter will give you only 65 hp. It is more than enough
to fly a KR2. Mine was built with a stock 2 liter Type 4, and it flew well,
even at gross weight and at 12 000 ft density altitude.

So, you don't NEED more power, but if you WANT more power, you will have to
work from a VW engine, preferably a Type 4. You will have to buy a serious
kit to increase the power, or to buy the entire powerplant from a good
supplier (there is one n Autralia). One can push the 2 liter to 2.4, even
2.7; the power will come to about 100 hp in the best case, but you will pay
for it in lack of reliability.

Your costs will be:
- The engine case,
- The "aero" conversion (propeller drive, carb, cooler, ignition...)
- And, and, and...

And for all that, you will have an automotivew conversion (a home-made
engine, not a certified and proven one) of anything between 80 and 100 hp.

In any case, unless you have good connections in the engine rebuild world,
it is unrealistic to hope for less than US$ 6000 for a 80 to 100hp
powerplant.

So, if you are short of cash, yet don't want to take chances with a
homebuilt engine, I recommend you but either a Jabiru 4 cylinder, or the
best ready-made VW conversion you can't get in Autralia?

Personally, swapped my old stock Type 4 for a South-African made 2.4 liter
Type 4, delivering about 80hp, on which I rigged a dual electronic ignition
from motorcycle parts.

Serge Vidal
KR2 ZS-WEC
Tunis, Tunisia


-Original Message-
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net]On
Behalf Of Gavin Donohoe
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 09:22
To: KR builders and pilots
Subject: KR>Engines

Hi All,

Well the age old question, Which engine to use for my KR2S??
Here in Australia we have an engine manufacturing facility for light
aircraft engines called Jabiru, and from all accounts they are first class
engines. This is what I was at first going to use. However the price is
fairly high at just over $18000 AUD for a six cylinder 3300 cc model
producing 120 hp.
At only  178 lbs in weight they are ideal power plants though a little out
of my price range !!!
My question is if I go for a VW engine what size do I need for over 100 hp,
and can I get a kit of accessories for it, and build an engine from the
wrecking yard to fit them to???  Which model VW do I need?  What about
Corvair engines for Australia ( we don't have them here ) How would I get
one over here and what's available to help me build one??? How much are they
second hand, and are there any left of the correct model for modification??
Hows the weight of an O200 conti compare to these options ?

Thanks
Gavin


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/2003
___
see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html



KR>Engines

2008-10-12 Thread Mark Langford
There's some more Type 4 VW info at
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/kvw.html

Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL
N56ML at hiwaay.net
see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford




  1   2   >