KR> engines
KR> engines
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
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
>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
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
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
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
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
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 Brennanwrote: 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
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
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
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
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
"Other than cost..." I think this is the main reason. Stephen Teate Paradise, Texas ste...@compositecooling.com
KR> Engines
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
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
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 Hayneswrote: > 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
Tim Hayneswrote: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
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
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
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 Hayneswrote: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Annd pick up the Newsletters on CD, Virg On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:18:25 -0600 Larry Flesnerwrites: > 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
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
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
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
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
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...
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
"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
- 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
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
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
> 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
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
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
> Eric J Pittswrites: > 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
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
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
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
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
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 Raineywrote: 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
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
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
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
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
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 Raineywrote: > 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
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
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
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
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
>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
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
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
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
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
>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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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