From: Andreas Meyer Subject: Zoche engine Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 11:33:04 EST Hi Marc, I forgot whether or not I told you that I would send you info on the Zoche engine, but I thought that this might be of interest to you anyway even though right now there don't seem to be developing an engine in the 180-200 hp range. Andreas ************************************* ZOCHE aero-diesels The Diesel engine has demonstrated the lowest specific fuel consumption of any prime mover (as low as .26 lb/hp hr for large 2-stroke marine Diesels). It uses fuel which is much cheaper and still contains more energy per gallon than gasoline or avgas. There were Diesel aircraft engines decades ago. In the 1930's the Junkers JUMO 205 was well used on transatlantic service to South America; it had a cruise BSFC of .356 lb/hp hr and a specific weight of 1.5 lb/hp (for max. power). JUMO Diesel powered aircraft had operating altitudes of up to 50,000 feet. So far there has been no development of this kind of highly efficient aero-engine (except for Napier Nomad which did not reach production stage). Following these almost forgotten examples we developed a new piston engine for the general aviation: the ZOCHE aero diesel. It is a radial engine with 4 cylinders per row. It is a direct drive, highly charged, direct fuel injected, air cooled two-stroke cycle diesel. The opposed-cylinder, spark ignited aircraft engine taken as baseline, ZOCHE aero diesels offer many advantages: * The engine has half the specific weight, half the frontal area and burns less fuel. This leads to remarkable improvements of aircraft parameters. Payload, range and speed will be markedly better. * Greatly reduced fuel costs - engine burns fewer lb/hp hr; diesel or jet fuel has more lb/gallon and costs less per gallon. * Very low vibration level - the 4 cylinder bank can be 100% balanced for all rotating and reciprocating inertias. Torque vibration is minimal due to 4 (or 8) overlapping power pulses per revolution. There is no reversing torque. * High inflight reliability - no carburettot-icing, no magneto or spark-plug problems, no vapor lock. Turbine inlet temperature is so low that it needs no monitoring. Even cylinder head temperatures are not critical. * Good reliability and low maintenance cost due to the lack of reduction drive, the very low parts count and the use of reliable diesel components. * No electromagnetic interference. * Easy to operate - one power lever only. No mixture, no alternate air, no aux fuel pump, no magneto switches, no mandatory temperature, boost or power restrictions. * Reduced 'hot and high' problems - critical altitude at least 9,000 feet. * Reliable start at low temperatures - patented pneumatic start system provides instant manifold pressure. Cold start and acceleration to 2,500 rpm within a second has been demonstrated. Start air reservoir is refilled by a manifold air driven free piston pump. In case of need this pump can be operated on any 2 bar (28 psi) air supply. A fully automatic prelubrication system is standard. * Dramitcally reduced fire hazard - diesel fuel has a much lower flammability. Exhaust manifold temperature is 720 F lower. * Safe electrical power - directly driven overload protected brushless alternator - no belts or gears or bearings. * Full aerobatic pressure lubrication. The very compact ZOCHE aero diesel incorporates the latest cylinder technology as well as refinements like tungsten counterweights and full aerobatic pressure lubrication. The ZOCHE aero diesel's high efficiency reduces the amount of rejected heat, thereby minimizing the cooling air requirement. Cooling problems are further reduced by the fact that there are no areas in this diesel engine which demand such exact cooling as the cylinder head of a spark ignited engine. Charge air pressure is generated by a combination of a highly efficient mechanical blower and a turbocharger. This reduces the power loss at altitude. Recent improvements include a proprietary pneumatic starter system which uses the gear driven supercharger as a starter turbine. The fuel injection pump together with its feed pump, the fuel filter and all connecting plumbing is now integrated into the crankcase assembly. The intake manifold is now a part of the crankcase casting. These developments further reduce the parts count, simp Specifications: ZOCHE ZO 01A Power at 2,500 rpm 110 kW 150 hp Displacement 2.665 liter 163 cu inches Bore / Stroke 95 / 94 mm 3.74/3.70 inches Piston Speed at 2,500 rpm 7.83 m/sec 1,540 fpm Compression Ratio 17 : 1 Intake Manifold Pressure 3 bar abs 87 inch Hg Intake Intake Manifold Temperature 80 C 176 F Inlet Temperature < 550 C < 1,000 F Pressure Lubrication 5 bar 72 psi Height = Width 548 mm 21.5 inches Diameter 627 mm 24.7 inches Length 835 mm 32.9 inches Weight 84 kg 185 lbs Max Power BSFC 238 g/kWh .3855 lb/hp hr Cruise (65%) BSFC 225 g/kWh .3634 lb/hp hr Fuels Diesel Fuel #2, Jet Fuel JP 4, Jet A Specifications: ZOCHE ZO 02A Power at 2,500 rpm 220 kW 300 hp Displacement 5.33 liter 326 cu inches Bore / Stroke 95 / 94 mm 3.74/3.70 inches Piston Speed at 2,500 rpm 7.83 m/sec 1,540 fpm Compression Ratio 17 : 1 Intake Manifold Pressure 3 bar abs 87 inch Hg Intake Manifold Temperature 80 C 176 F Turbine Inlet Temperature < 550 C < 1,000 F Pressure Lubrication 5 bar 72 psi Height = Width 627 mm 24.7 inches Diameter 627 mm 24.7 inches Length 934 mm 36.8 inches Weight 118 kg 259 lbs Max Power BSFC 238 g/kWh .3855 lb/hp hr Cruise (65%) BSFC 225 g/kWh .3634 lb/hp hr Fuels Diesel Fuel #2, Jet Fuel JP 4, Jet A Propeller Shaft Rotation is clockwise (viewed from anti-propeller end), there are 3 Accessory Drive Pads running at Crankshaft Speed, Weight includes: Pneumatic Starter, Alternator 24 V 40 A, hydraulic Prop-Governor, Turbo- and Supercharger, Oil- and Fuel filter. Minimum Starter Air Reservoir is 8 liter / 30 bar (2.1 gallon / 435 psi). Engines will be certified according to JAR-E and FAR 33. Patents DE 3525665, EP 0231223, US 4,781,028, Japan 63-500818, Patents pending. "aero diesel" is a Registered Trademark. MICHAEL ZOCHE. KEFERSTRASSE 13.8000 MUNCHEN 40.GERMANY TELEFON(+49 89) 34 45 91. TELEFAX(+49 89) 34 24 51 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 18:15:18 -0800 From: gbowen@ix.netcom.com (Gordon Bowen) Subject: Cozy newsgroup Marc, Glad to hear from you, I tried to E mail to the address I was given for you but was returned due to confused address. Please add my name to your news. Ref: why what powerplant. I decided early to go auto conversion, Nat disowned me. I've looked at all the v-6 stuff and decided it was not worth the cost, vibration, little gain of horsepower for weight, etc. The Chevy 4.3l looked the best but the question of harmonics destroying the engine at output levels needed for power worries me. The 4.3 liter is designed to give max. torque at 2800 rpm, this equals only 117 hp. To run at higher HP means less torque and then a 2:1 pru. The best 6 cycl. automotive I've found for balance and hp is the SVX but this is very rare and more expensive than a run out 0-360 without increases in horsepower. If I made major modifications to increase horsepower the engine cost more a normal mid time 0-360 and requires a pru. Best bet came with the LT-1 lots of torque at 4000 rpm over 330 lbs, 251 real hp at this ca. 75% power setting, the pru (belt driven) cost ca. $2400 from a guy in Ontario, and with this much power I can swing a very large 3 bladed variable prop at nice low RPM's. Only disadv. is the total weight behind the firewall may approach 450-480 lbs. My weight is over 270 lbs, so when I fly alone I'm probably going to need 40 lbs of lead in the next seat or under my feet to get in the middle of cg. Biggest worry is this much mass so far away from cg mid point, I might have an inertia problem with directional changes, don't know for sure. But thats why they call it the experiental. Keep in contact- Best regards- Gordon FYI, I'm Hexcel's marketing manager for the resins group. I normally do the stuff for Hexcel at Oskhosh and provide technical support for call in questions about Saf-t-poxy, RAE, Epolite etc. The later job is not normally my job but I enjoy the EAA and volunteer. Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 1:26:14 EST Subject: Re: Cozy newsgroup Gordon; >Glad to hear from you, I tried to E mail to the address I was given for >you but was returned due to confused address. Please add my name to >your news. Interesting - you're the second person that's had that trouble. Once people get the address right, it seems to work fine, though. Anyway, you'll be up and running as of Tuesday, Feb. 28. To send mail to everyone on the list, send it to: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com I'm on the list, so you don't have to send it to me also. Good to have you on board! >Ref: why what powerplant. I decided early to go auto conversion, I guess the question is, what made you decide this? Just wanted more power? Assumed it would be cheaper? Like to live dangerously? :-). >................................................................. Nat >disowned me. Yeah, not a big surprise. I get the impression he's a good guy, but you better do everything EXACTLY his way, or the highway. . . >The best 6 cycl. automotive I've found for balance and hp is the SVX but >this is very rare and more expensive than a run out 0-360 without >increases in horsepower. If I made major modifications to increase >horsepower the engine cost more a normal mid time 0-360 and requires a >pru. That's what I've seen. >Best bet came with the LT-1 lots of torque at 4000 rpm over 330 lbs, 251 >real hp at this ca. 75% power setting, the pru (belt driven) cost ca. >$2400 from a guy in Ontario, and with this much power I can swing a very >large 3 bladed variable prop at nice low RPM's. Isn't there a limit (like 70") to the size of the prop? Isn't that basically what you would swing with an O-360? >.................... Only disadv. is the >total weight behind the firewall may approach 450-480 lbs. My weight is >over 270 lbs, so when I fly alone I'm probably going to need 40 lbs of >lead in the next seat or under my feet to get in the middle of cg. >Biggest worry is this much mass so far away from cg mid point, I might >have an inertia problem with directional changes, don't know for sure. >But thats why they call it the experiental. WOW, thats a LOT of weight behind the firewall! Should I assume you made a few structural changes to the firewall and corresponding layups to take the extra load? I wouldn't guess you'd have too much trouble as far as the inertial stuff goes - it will slow down a little, but the plane's already pretty quick, so you'll still react O.K. (I'd guess). >Keep in contact- Best regards- Gordon You bet. -- Marc J. Zeitlin E-Mail: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 20:04:41 -0800 From: gbowen@ix.netcom.com (Gordon Bowen) Subject: Cozy autopower Marc, Thanks for your comments. The original decision was based on the principal of the thing. A 90's designed plane with a run out 25 year old powerplant. The cost and added power was an additional consideration. Lastly, to go with a 350 cubic inch motor means I could be competitive in the centurian class race that takes place between Denver and Oshkosh. I'd love to beat the Glasair with the big turbo'ed 0-470. After engine run-in and bugs worked out of plane, I can buy on the performance aftermarket a small supercharger that fits neatly on the front of a corvettes induction, give 4-5 lbs of boost so racing Don at Glasair would be more fair at 17,999 feet, in 1996. Only a dream. Yea, I did beef up the firewall and attachment points a lot. Generally beefed up the entire structure where I felt uncomfortable. Because of my job, I have access to autoclaves, various performance composite parts etc. Nat can be the crankiest old woman I've ever met, but I cannot blame him for discouraging people for tinkering with his babies. What are you building or flying? Best regards- Gordon Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 9:44:24 EST Subject: Re: Cozy autopower Gordon; >Thanks for your comments. The original decision was based on the >principal of the thing. A 90's designed plane with a run out 25 year >old powerplant. OTOH, what's the lineage of the car motors? My guess is the technology hasn't changed much in 20-30 years either. Not in any REAL substantive manner. >............... The cost and added power was an additional >consideration. Lastly, to go with a 350 cubic inch motor means I could >be competitive in the centurian class race that takes place between >Denver and Oshkosh. I'd love to beat the Glasair with the big turbo'ed >0-470. Ah-hah! We get to the REAL reason :-). >After engine run-in and bugs worked out of plane, I can buy on the >performance aftermarket a small supercharger that fits neatly on the >front of a corvettes induction, give 4-5 lbs of boost so racing Don at >Glasair would be more fair at 17,999 feet, in 1996. Only a dream. Hope you achieve it. >Yea, I did beef up the firewall and attachment points a lot. Generally >beefed up the entire structure where I felt uncomfortable. Because of >my job, I have access to autoclaves, various performance composite parts >etc. Boy, life is tough. I have access to a cramped, small unheated basement. I envy you. >Nat can be the crankiest old woman I've ever met, but I cannot blame him >for discouraging people for tinkering with his babies. He's got to do it, otherwise he'd get mixed up in every hare-brained scheme anyone came up with. >What are you building or flying? Well, I haven't flown in about 10 years, but I've got a glider and single engine power rating, and I built a Q2 about 12 years ago but never flew it. I'm building a Cozy MKIV now - just in the middle of Chapter 6. Got some questions I'll ask the whole crew. -- Marc J. Zeitlin E-Mail: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 08:44:28 PDT From: "Michael Antares" Subject: Franklin engines Has anyone investigated using Franklin engines in the Cozy? The 220 hp, 6 cylinder version, currently selling for less the $12K new, is advertised as ideal for the Cozy MK IV but weighs in at 335 lbs. This would seem to be excessive. I probably should re-read the old newsletters for mention pro or con but I admit I haven't. Speaking of which, I have been thinking the last week or so of the advantage of putting the technical portions of the newsletters on disk so that they could be searched. Has anyone already done this or what do y'all think of the idea? Michael Antares Software/Hardware Systems Engineering mantares@crl.com Santa Rosa, California From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: Franklin engines (fwd) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 13:19:21 EDT Michael A. writes: >Has anyone investigated using Franklin engines in the Cozy? The 220 hp, 6 >cylinder version, currently selling for less the $12K new, is advertised as >ideal for the Cozy MK IV but weighs in at 335 lbs. That weight (if true) is less than a O-360 with everything. I had thought that engine would also be interesting - didn't know it went that cheap. I figured I'd wait a year or two before starting engine investigations, but if anyone else knows anything about this one, I'd love to hear it. -- Marc J. Zeitlin E-Mail: marcz@an.hp.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0sMIft-0002huC; Thu, 15 Jun 95 12:25 CDT with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 12:35:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 12:28:29 -0500 From: Scott Christensen Subject: engines > Michael Antares writes: > > Has anyone investigated using Franklin engines in the Cozy? I do not know anything about the Franklin engine, but this brings up the issue of engine alternatives in which I am VERY interested. Here in Dallas there is a Velocity being built by four people. They planned to use the Subaru SVX engine rather than the O-360. The SVX engine is a horizontally opposed, liquid cooled six-cylinder putting out over 200 HP (non turbo version). They purchased the SVX engine for $5000 from that import shop in Ft. Worth that advertises in Kitplanes. They also bought the Ross reduction unit for about $3500. It is a very compact, slick engine! Each cylinder has it's own coil built into the head and it is fuel injected. At this point the basic airframe is nearing completion and mounting the engine is soon in the works. Unfortunately, they decided to sell the SVX engine and go back to the O-360. They said that they will have $60,000 in the plane and don't want to risk using an auto engine. The key factor in this decision was the SVX engine control modules/computers. I have to admit that it looked like a wiring mess. I like the idea of cheap overhauls and maintenance. Anybody know of any auto-conversion projects other than the Volkswagen? There are three KR2 projects in Dallas that I know about that are all using the Subaru EA81 engine. It is a 1.8 liter four-cylinder. One KR2 has been approved by the FAA for its first flight. It even has air-conditioning! (But the freon is not charged yet) The man that is ready to fly his KR2 built the belt-drive reduction units for all three A/C. Anybody have an opinion about this topic? Scott Christensen schriste@intervoice.com From: Lee Devlin Subject: Re: Franklin engines Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 11:41:51 MDT There's a guy in my EAA chapter who has designed and built a plane which he intends to turn into a kit and he was going to use the Franklin engine. He got one which was new but it did not have the accessories that he understood were included so he's using a Lycoming in the plane now. I can ask he a little more about it and what his opinions of the engine are. I saw it sitting in his hangar last week and I don't know what his plans are for it. Lee Devlin Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 14:05:13 -0400 From: paul@ashley.jbc.edu (Paul Beam) Subject: engines. I'm new to the group, and I'm glad to see that the conversation has turned to engines. One of the reasons I'm still on the sidelines is because I'm not excited about the engine choices that I know about. I may begin the build anyway and figure it out later. I don't have any info on the Franklin engines. I do, however, have a flyer from Aircraft Systems who produce the "Formula Power" Subara conversions. At the time, I was looking at building an RV-6, so I was interest in a 150HP engine. They have a 170 HP which weighs in at 258 lbs and costs $12,500. Exhaust is extra. A 222HP engine is also 258 lbs, but costs a whopping $16,995. Prices and weights do include the reduction drive. Their engines have fuel injection and DIS (direct ignition system or distributorless ignition system). Just thought the info would help. R Paul Beam Computer Systems Engineer Johnson Bible College 7900 Johnson Drive Knoxville, TN 37998 (615) 573-4517 (615) 579-2337 fax Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:21:57 -0500 From: campbell@ee.umn.edu (faculty S. A. Campbell) Subject: Franklin Engines A friend of mine who occasionally posts to RAH (Chuck Calderall) is building a Velocity and is currently planning to put one in his machine. He tells me that the factory has one and plans to test it in the velocity this summer. It has a TBO of about 1000 hours, but the cylinders have replacable sleeves. He claims that the overhaul costs will be much less than for a Lyc or TCM. Steve Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 15:43:46 -0400 From: SidLloyd@aol.com Subject: Re: engines In a message dated 95-06-15 13:35:12 EDT, SCHRISTE@intervoice.com writes: >They said that they will have $60,000 in the plane and >don't want to risk using an auto engine I agree! Until auto engine conversions have been working reliably for years I'll stick to Lycomings. Ray Ward is a member of my chapter and built the BD4 with the big block Chevy in it you may have seen profiled the past few years in most of the magazines. He has over $26K in the engine and things still keep breaking. Auto engines are not made to stand up to the thermal and vibrational conditions of aviation. Also, as far as I have been able to determine, the story the the Subura engine was origonally an aircraft engine is an aviation myth. Sid From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: Re: engines (fwd) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 16:07:26 EDT Sid L. writes: >SCHRISTE@intervoice.com writes: > >>They said that they will have $60,000 in the plane and >>don't want to risk using an auto engine > >I agree! Until auto engine conversions have been working reliably for years >I'll stick to Lycomings. Ray Ward is a member of my chapter and built the >BD4 with the big block Chevy in it you may have seen profiled the past few >years in most of the magazines. He has over $26K in the engine and things >still keep breaking. Auto engines are not made to stand up to the thermal >and vibrational conditions of aviation. I am glad (in some sense) that I've got 3-4 years to think about this. I keep vacillating back and forth. I've GOT to believe that an auto engine conversion can be made to work reliably, and with all the people trying, SOMEONE's got to succeed - there's just no proof they have, yet. I put my money on the Subaru conversions, and in 3 years, there ought to be enough data for me to decide. On the other hand, the Franklin IS an aircraft engine, and at 1/2 the price of the Lycoming, new. This looks promising, as does the 150 hp Zoche (lose a little on takeoff and climb, gain a lot at altitude) although the price for this one is a bit high. -- Marc J. Zeitlin E-Mail: marcz@an.hp.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0sMLqS-0003rPC; Thu, 15 Jun 95 15:48 CDT with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 15:58:41 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 15:51:17 -0500 From: Scott Christensen Subject: engines > Sid L. writes: > >>They said that they will have $60,000 in the plane and >>don't want to risk using an auto engine > > I agree! Until auto engine conversions have been working > reliably for years I'll stick to Lycomings. The converted Volkswagen engine has been used for a long time, but I have no idea about the reliability. Didn't Burt Rutan design the Veri-EZ around this engine? When and how did the O-200 come to be the default? It would be nice to hear about a success story with alternative engines. That is why is was disappointed when the Velocity guys did not use the SVX engine. I agree with you Sid, let those before us take all the risk and resolve the problems! I found in an old Kitplanes issue that someone in Tucson has a dragonfly with the Subaru Legacy engine. It is a 2.2 liter four-cylinder with fuel injection and has all those engine control modules/computers. The article said that he got all of them to work. I have always wanted to write and ask for details about how he did it and how things are holding up. Scott Christensen schriste@intervoice.com Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 20:18:27 -0400 From: JIMWHI@aol.com Subject: Zoche Diesel I like the specs of the Zoche diesel. Hopefully after several years of flight testing in airplanes that land slower than 80 mph, I plan on replacing the 0-360 I am installing in my Cozy. Zoche's 4-cylinder is rated at only 150 HP, but it is considerably lighter, and that weight includes a prop governor, which could be used to drive a constant speed prop with no overall weight increase over the 0-360 fixed pitch. Constant speed prop would help make up for the lack of HP in climb and take-off distance. There are many other benefits that are too long to mention. Anyone that knows me, knows that I don't like auto engine conversions. If you are considering one, consider this, put a trailer hitch on your Subaru with its SVX engine, hitch up a heavy trailer and then drive it back and fourth across the US for 125 consecutive days at 8 hrs per day, in third gear at 65 mph and see if it holds up. Would you bet your life on it that something won't break? I wouldn't. Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 17:51:07 -0700 From: johnw@daktel.com Subject: engines Has anyone heard of CONTACT! magazine? It is a homebuilders mag that covers in-depth technical articles on airframes and auto power conversions (most are flying). It is published six times a year with a subscription rate of $18.00. There is no advertising in the magazine, just a lot of info. I enjoy it and think many of you will too. You can get a sample copy for $5.00 (which applies toward subscription!) and ask for a list of back issues which you can order for $4.00 each or any three for $11.00. The address is: CONTACT! 2900 East Weymouth Tucson, AZ 85716 The last issue also covered Ron Gowan's Cozy (three place) that has about 300 hours on a 160 hp Mazda rotary engine. John Williams Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:17:45 -0400 From: StetsonE@aol.com Subject: Re: engines Scott Christensen wrote: >The converted Volkswagen engine has been used for a long time, >but I have no idea about the reliability. Didn't Burt Rutan design the >Veri-EZ around this engine? When and how did the O-200 come to >be the default? While other designers may have good success with VW conversions, Burt Rutan did not. The VW engine that was originally installed in the prototype VariEze suffered numerous reliability related problems, including at least 1 inflight emergency. For this reason Burt recommended the O-200 for the VariEze, although he believed the VariEze airframe was not well suited to the weight of an O-200 with all accessories. The O-200 and O-235 was approved as long as the starter was removed and a minimal lightweight electrical system was used. Thats why in some older photos of VariEzes you will see a solar panel installed ahead of the canopy, all to save weight. Burt believed a VW conversion lost significant reliability if the HP was pushed beyond 60, as most VW conversions are. Stet Elliott StetsonE@aol.com Perpetual Long-EZ builder (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0sMiUq-0002pgC; Fri, 16 Jun 95 16:00 CDT with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 16:09:47 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 16:02:57 -0500 From: Scott Christensen Subject: re: engines Jim White wrote: > Anyone that knows me, knows that I don't like auto engine > conversions. If you are considering one, consider this, put a > trailer hitch on your Subaru with its SVX engine, hitch up a heavy > trailer and then drive it back and fourth across the US for 125 > consecutive days at 8 hrs per day, in third gear at 65 mph and > see if it holds up. Would you bet your life on it that something > won't break? I wouldn't. Jim has a very valid point. This scenario has the engine loaded and running at high RPMs for a long period of time (1000 hours); as it would be in an A/C over the engine's life. A test perhaps comparable actually was performed on the Subaru engine. "Three Subaru Legacy sedans ran continuously for 18.5 days in 1989 at an average speed of 138 mph, setting a world record." (September, 1992, Kitplanes, p. 61, and July, 1994, Kitplanes, p. 38) I did get in touch with Justine Mace in Tucson. The Subaru Legacy engine in his Dragonfly has over 320 trouble free hours to date. I found this in an article about the Ross reduction system: "Other customers, such as Jacques Gernest of Montreal, spent a week at Ross Aero manufacturing a Ross-designed engine mount for his rotary-powered Cozy." (October, 1992, Kitplanes, p. 49) It would be interesting to see if this Cozy is flying and how the engine is performing. I think that in a few years we'll have the necessary data on these engines to condemn or condone them. Scott Christensen schriste@intervoice.com Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 05:32:24 -0700 From: johnw@daktel.com Subject: Contact! The article in the Contact! magazine that covered the Mazda conversion was in a Long-EZ, not a Cozy 3. Sorry about that. John Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 11:09:26 -0400 From: Marcnadine@aol.com Subject: More on the Zoche engine I was nice to see the group turn to engine talk last week, I also have been very interested in the Zoche 150hp with the prop-governor, and wondered if it would proform. The engine has a weight of 185 lbs (about 100 less than a 0-320, I don't know the weight of the 0-360) which may cause a balance problem. The engine burns Jet-A or diesel so fuel should not be a problem. Zoche also makes a 300 hp radial which has a weight of 271 lbs. and looking at the size, it would fit in the cowl with no problems (lets just see how fast we can go). The engines are apparently also very efficent. Their rated specific fuel consumption is 25% lower than a engine of the same power. If anyone is interested, I have a data sheet from Zoche and would fax to any with an interest. Just e-mail you fax #. They are sending me the price sheet on the two engines I mentioned and I will pass it along when I receive it. I also have found out about a Active Noise Reduction kit that can be added to just about any headset for about $100. Headsets, Inc. (806)373-9515. Marc P. Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 22:48:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Westland Subject: Engines In the last couple of newsletters, Nat has ran a notice on "rebuilt" O-360's from Dan Brown. Has anyone called to find out what "reasonable price" means? Eric Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 11:34:48 -0400 From: Marcnadine@aol.com Subject: Re: OSH, Velocity new engine. In a message dated 95-08-03 07:51:58 EDT, Danky01@aol.com writes: In Danky01 last note wrote a little about the Zoche diesel that made a showing at OSH. Months ago when I first talked about this motor I had the impression that it would be out soon at a good price. After talking to the Zoche this week and finding that it would be some time before we could get our hands on one and if we could the 8 cylinder, 300 hp monster would cost about $35,000, I'm looking elsewhere. An engine that looks very promising was the V-4 Turbo Diesel that is going in the new Velocity. * 200 h.p.@ 2,500 two-stroke diesel with power stroke every 90 deg. of rotation. * Liquid Cooled, with limp-home capability without turbochager, unlimited operaton at 50% power without collant. * Weight with accessories = 190 lbs.( I was told that moving the engine back would balance the Cozy). The engine has only one-third the moving parts of a 4-cly Lyoming. The cylinder heads are cast as part of the block. There are no head gaskets to blow, on head bolts. Internal parts are installed through the bottom of the engine. The motor is being produced by: Universal Tech, Inc. P.O. Box 115 Winamac, In 46996 Phone/Fax 414-425-5963 This motor looks very interesting, I would like to see how it works out in the Velocity and get Nats ok first. When I first talked to Nat about the Zoche engine he did not say no, don't do it. He had a lets see attitude about it. He also had that same feeling about the Franklin engine with the weight being of concern. The only engines that Nat is does not want to see in any Cozy is the ones that belong in cars. And if you were at his forum or at the internet group meeting this came across very strong. Nats feeling are that his design has had a very good record and car engines in planes has not. Some of you have responded to me about the composite class being held in L.A. this month. After all the forums I attented during OSH I have desided no to attent. If you would like more information, contact Aircraft Spruce about the class. I will share more about forums later. Marc P. N425CZ Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 12:04:14 -0400 From: Marcnadine@aol.com Subject: P.S. on Velocity Engine This is a P.S. to my last note on the Velocity Engine. The cost of the engine is $12,000. Marc P. N425CZ Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 21:00:39 -0400 From: Marcnadine@aol.com Subject: Re: 2 -Zoche Diesel Price In a message dated 95-08-04 19:18:37 EDT, JIMWHI writes: << Subj: Re: Zoche Diesel Price Date: 95-08-04 19:18:37 EDT From: JIMWHI To: Marcnadine Jimwhi writes: >Marc, you mentioned the 300 HP monster is expected to be in the $35,000 range. >That's not bad compared to an IO540 ($45,000 +). I wonder if anyone has any idea how >much the 150 HP Zoche will go for. I have heard comparable to aircraft engines of >similar HP. I take this to mean something less than $20,000. Anybody know anything >more about that? >> I had a long talk with Nat today and one of the things we talked about about was the Franklin engine. He is very interested it and said that it's 6 clys. puts out about 220 hp at 2500 rpm. Because of its high compression it should be very good on fuel, and the 6 clys. should make for a softer ride. The engine lists for about $12,000 which I think is great. Nat said that as soon as he can get his hands on one, you'll see in his Mark VI. Marc P. N525CZ Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 05:34:16 -0700 From: johnw@daktel.com Subject: Re: 2 -Zoche Diesel Price Jimwhi writes: >Marc, you mentioned the 300 HP monster is expected to be in the $35,000 range. >That's not bad compared to an IO540 ($45,000 +). I wonder if anyone has any idea how >much the 150 HP Zoche will go for. I have heard comparable to aircraft engines of >similar HP. I take this to mean something less than $20,000. Anybody know anything >more about that? >> While at Oshkosh I went to the Zoche forum and they said that the price for their engines would be $10,000 for the 2 cylinder, $20,000 for the 4 cylinder, and $40,000 for the 8 cylinder engines. That would in the price range of other certified engines. That was quite disappointing to hear. Also I walked over to the Franklin (Atlas Motors) exibit with Nat to see the Franklin and he was very interested in it. He made the comment that installing the engine in his MK IV would be a good project to start on. The extra weight (330 lb on the exibit engine) of the Franklin did not seem to be of great concern depending on where the CG of the engine was. He asked for and recieved blueprints of the engine and I also believe a parts book.(?) Anyway I just thought I would pass this on. John Williams From: Lee Devlin Subject: O-320 in a Cozy MkIV? Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 16:03:43 MDT I talked today with a Varieze pilot from Golden, CO who is interested in building a Cozy. He initially wanted a 3-place since his goal is just to get a seat for his wife beside him as well as some luggage space. Since Nat no longer sells the 3-place plans, he was curious how the MKIV would perform with an O-320 instead of the O-360. The run out engine cores for O-320s are about 1/2 the price of O-360s ($3.5K vs $7-8K). He is also interested in using auto gas which is a possibility with an O-320 but not with the higher compression O-360. He intends to use an electronic ignition (w/ 1 magneto) and a fuel injection system which should get some extra HP out of the O-320. Weight savings are expected to be around 35 lbs. I seem to remember that Nat chose an O-360 since he knew that if he didn't, builders would go ahead and use it anyway and they'd essentially be flying around in an untested plane. Is anyone aware of any MKIV builders using an O-320? He's talked with Nat about it but I don't know if he got a straight answer or was given the silent treatment. I told him I'd solicit some responses from our Cozy builder's group and then share the information with him. What are your collective opinions on using the O-320/auto gas combination for the Cozy MKIV? Lee Devlin Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 18:36:28 EDT Subject: O-320 in a Cozy MkIV? Lee Devlin wrote; >.................... Since >Nat no longer sells the 3-place plans, he was curious how the MKIV would >perform with an O-320 instead of the O-360. The run out engine cores for >O-320s are about 1/2 the price of O-360s ($3.5K vs $7-8K). The 3-place plans are still available for $500 from: Cosy Europe Uli and Linda Wolter Ahornstr. 10, D-8901 Augsburg, West Germany There was one of these planes at OSHKOSH. >...................... He's talked with Nat about it but I don't know >if he got a straight answer or was given the silent treatment. If he's already talked to Nat, then he's come to the right place. Certainly, Nat is the FIRST resort for questions such as these (and I say that with all seriousness. Really. No, really. Hey, stop hitting me!). >I told him I'd solicit some responses from our Cozy builder's group and >then share the information with him. What are your collective opinions >on using the O-320/auto gas combination for the Cozy MKIV? Well, the 150 HP O-320 is 16% less powerful. However, 75% of 150 HP is only 4.5 HP less than 65% of 180 HP, so cruising would be OK; just a few knots slower than economy cruise with the O-360. The biggest differences will be on takeoff and climb. Climbing a 2000 lb plane at 1000 ft/min takes about 60 HP. 30 HP less would cut the climb back to 500 ft/min (about like a medium loaded 172). Of course, it would do better at less than gross weight. Takeoff would be longer (obviously), and harder to estimate. If Nat put the O-360 in because he knew people would do it, does that imply that he was going to use a O-320? If it does, one could infer that it's a reasonable engine to use, especially with a reduced gross weight limitation. My $0.02. -- Marc J. Zeitlin E-Mail: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 05:10:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Tech Support - Rick Subject: Re: O-320 in a Cozy MkIV? > > If Nat put the O-360 in because he knew people would do it, does that > imply that he was going to use a O-320? If it does, one could infer > that it's a reasonable engine to use, especially with a reduced gross > weight limitation. BTW, the O-320 is approved for the MkIV. It is in the info sheet Nat gives out to prospective builders at fly-ins. Rick -0001 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for leed@hpgrla.gr.hp.com); Wed, 16 Aug 1995 07:41:53 -0400 From: "Dewey Davis" Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 07:43:01 -0400 "O-320 in a Cozy MkIV?" (Aug 15, 16:03) Subject: Re: O-320 in a Cozy MkIV? On Aug 15, 16:03, Lee Devlin wrote: > Subject: O-320 in a Cozy MkIV? > I talked today with a Varieze pilot from Golden, CO who is interested in > building a Cozy. He initially wanted a 3-place since his goal is just > to get a seat for his wife beside him as well as some luggage space. Since > Nat no longer sells the 3-place plans, he was curious how the MKIV would > perform with an O-320 instead of the O-360. The run out engine cores for > O-320s are about 1/2 the price of O-360s ($3.5K vs $7-8K). > > He is also interested in using auto gas which is a possibility with an > O-320 but not with the higher compression O-360. He intends to use an > electronic ignition (w/ 1 magneto) and a fuel injection system which > should get some extra HP out of the O-320. Weight savings are expected > to be around 35 lbs. > > I seem to remember that Nat chose an O-360 since he knew that if he > didn't, builders would go ahead and use it anyway and they'd essentially > be flying around in an untested plane. Is anyone aware of any MKIV > builders using an O-320? He's talked with Nat about it but I don't know > if he got a straight answer or was given the silent treatment. > > I told him I'd solicit some responses from our Cozy builder's group and > then share the information with him. What are your collective opinions > on using the O-320/auto gas combination for the Cozy MKIV? > > Lee Devlin >  >  >-- End of excerpt from Lee Devlin An O-320 in a Mark IV is a bad idea. An under-powered airplane is no fun and is unsafe. I always believed that the O-235 was not enough engine for the original COZY. Although some have used it successfully, it definitely doesn't perform as well as the larger engine. Unlike the Long EZ, the Cozy is a big enough airplane that you can easily get yourself in trouble by overloading it. You need the right engine for this airplane. There are several sad stories to back this up. Sometimes, even the larger engine isn't enough. Ask Keith Spreuer. Unfortunately, the price of O-360s is at a premium because it is THE preferred engine for so many of the new homebuilts that are under construction right now. It used to be the O-320 that was much higher priced. The O-360 is actually higher priced than some of the larger six cylinder engines! Supply and demand at work in the used engine economy. If you want to get ballsy and try a different engine, go for the six cylinder. Otherwise, I'd pay the extra bucks and stick with the O-360. Just my $.02 Dewey Davis Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 13:48:05 -0400 From: NBalog@aol.com Subject: Re: O-320 in a Cozy MkIV? Great. Anyone know of someone who's tested one out? Is there any performance data available from the Mk IV? -Norm Fri, 25 Aug 1995 15:55:32 +1000 Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 15:46:45 +0200 From: parkyn@citr.uq.oz.au (Nick Parkyn) Subject: O-320 in a Cozy MkIV? In one of his original articles Nat suggested that an O-320 would be acceptable. They also flew one of the Velocity prototypes on an O-320, I have the published performance figures for this Velocity and will put them in email. Nick................. Tue, 29 Aug 1995 09:34:14 +1000 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 09:26:52 +0200 From: parkyn@citr.uq.oz.au (Nick Parkyn) Subject: O-320 in a Cozy MkIV? I quote from the article "A Cozy Four Seater" by Don Downie in Kitplanes a few years ago: "so on the Cozy MK IV he started out with the O-360 A4D even though he (Nat) thinks that the O-320 would be quite adequate". Nick..................... Wed, 30 Aug 1995 09:28:02 +1000 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 09:20:39 +0200 From: parkyn@citr.uq.oz.au (Nick Parkyn) Subject: O-320 in a Cozy MkIV? This is the data that was published in Velocity advertising information and in a letter to me from Velocity in 1990. I quote from a letter from Jeff Hayes at Velocity Aircraft dated 15th March 1990. "We have a Lycoming O-320 powering one of our factory aircraft N7044Q, and we are using a 68 x 72 Aymar Demuth wood prop. We generally see approximately 160 knots with this engine-prop combination." Information published as "Actual Performance" in the early Velocity brochures is as follows: Gross weight is given as 2250lbs Empty weight is given as 1170lbs 180 HP ------ T.O. distance (solo) 680 (gross) 1600 ROC (2 people) 1500 fpm Landing distance 1K-2K ft. Cruise (12,500ft) 190-200 mph Max at sea level 210 mph Ceiling 29K+ Range at 65% 1600 miles 150 HP ------ T.O. distance (solo) 800 (gross) 2000 ROC (2 people) 1200 fpm Landing distance 1K-2K ft. Cruise (12,500ft) 170-175 mph Max at sea level 192 mph Ceiling 20K+ Range at 65% 2100 miles As indicated the above figures were published around 1990 when Velocity Aircraft was still owned by Danny Maher and do not necessarily represent the current thinking of Velocity Aircraft.They are ONLY reproduced in the hope that they may give some idea of the Cozy MK IV performance with an O-320 (150 / 160 HP). Nick #0007 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 09:44:33 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark J Turner Subject: Weight of Engines Hey Guys: I have received some information on the 'Franklin' 6A-350 engine and I want to compare it to the O-360 and IO-360 Lycomming engines... Does anyone have the weights for either/both of these engines?? Thanks... Mark... Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 16:13:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark J Turner Subject: Franklin Engines I just got off the phone with Pat Goodman, who is the president of Atlas Motors, Inc. the importers of the Franklin engines, and he is sending me a 'bunch' of information that I will be putting on the Internet. He also said that Nat has one of the 6-Cyl 220 HP engines and is working to get it installed on his Cozy... If anyone talks to Nat, could you ask and post about that?? I will let you all know when I get the Franklin information online... If anyone has information on the O-360 or IO-360, I would like to put together a comparison of the engines... Mark... Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 12:31:00 -0700 From: ljansch@ix.netcom.com (Larry Jansch) Subject: Fwd: Franklin Engines >He also said that Nat has one of the 6-Cyl 220 HP engines and is >working to get it installed on his Cozy... HEY! In one of the required-reading newsletters Nat was dead-set against installing IO-360s in Cozy Mk. VIs. They were too big, too heavy, and the airframe was not stressed for more than 180 horses. Now he's putting an even more powerful engine in his steed? Is an IO-360 or Franklin suitable motors or not? Inquiring minds wanna know! -Larry Mk. IV Kit #461 Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 08:08:35 -0500 From: tims@enet.net (Tim Sullivan) Subject: Re: Franklin Engines > I just got off the phone with Pat Goodman, who is the president of >Atlas Motors, Inc. the importers of the Franklin engines, and he is >sending me a 'bunch' of information that I will be putting on the >Internet. He also said that Nat has one of the 6-Cyl 220 HP engines and >is working to get it installed on his Cozy... If anyone talks to Nat, >could you ask and post about that?? I will see Nat this weekend at the Copperstate fly in. I might work his booth for a few hours so he can walk around. I will ask him but be forewarned that he probably will be reluctant to form any opinions/comments about the engine until he he completed his testing. I know that he is really intersted in the engine and told me so on a number of occasions. In three years (when I finish) I might consider one in my plane if the testing goes well and they can get their prices down a little. > I will let you all know when I get the Franklin information online... >If anyone has information on the O-360 or IO-360, I would like to put >together a comparison of the engines... Please post! Maybe Marc can make it a hyperlink subject on his web page if the testing goes well. Tim Sullivan (tims@enet.net) Phoenix, AZ | * | Cozy MK IV Builder #470 |-----(/)-----| The journey begins 8/10/95 / \ o o Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 08:36:05 -0500 From: tims@enet.net (Tim Sullivan) Subject: Re: Fwd: Franklin Engines >HEY! In one of the required-reading newsletters Nat was dead-set >against installing IO-360s in Cozy Mk. VIs. They were too big, too >heavy, and the airframe was not stressed for more than 180 horses. Now >he's putting an even more powerful engine in his steed? When I talked to him two weeks ago about an IO-360 he mentioned that it would fit. No scuttle except that it weighs 20 lbs or so more. Thats when hementioned the flranklin testing interest to me. >Is an IO-360 or Franklin suitable motors or not? Inquiring minds wanna >know! I think there are one or two flying now with the IO. You and I have a ways to go (I have plans 470) so fortunately this issue will be well resolved by the time we start looking fo an engine. Tim Sullivan (tims@enet.net) Phoenix, AZ | * | Cozy MK IV Builder #470 |-----(/)-----| The journey begins 8/10/95 / \ o o Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 09:41:22 -0400 From: Marcnadine@aol.com Subject: Re:3 Franklin Engines In a message dated 95-10-08 21:59:09 EDT, ljansch@ix.netcom.com (Larry Jansch) writes: >HEY! In one of the required-reading newsletters Nat was dead-set >against installing IO-360s in Cozy Mk. VIs. They were too big, too >heavy, and the airframe was not stressed for more than 180 horses. Now >he's putting an even more powerful engine in his steed? > >Is an IO-360 or Franklin suitable motors or not? Inquiring minds wanna >know! > >-Larry >Mk. IV Kit #461 When I spoke to Nat about the IO-360 a few months ago, and he said that the motor was not suitable because of the very strong power strokes it produces, and the engine shape would not fit in the cowl. Nat said he like the Franklin because it has 6 small pistons that produce very smooth power and the engine shape should fit inside the cowl. Marc N425CZ From: "Dewey Davis" Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 09:57:24 -0400 "Re: Rough River Report" (Oct 9, 8:14) Subject: Re: Rough River Report On Oct 9, 8:14, Mark J Turner wrote: > Subject: Re: Rough River Report > > On Mon, 9 Oct 1995, Dewey Davis wrote: > > > We had a couple of Defiants, Velocities, Jeff Russell's Aerocanard, and a > > bunch of COZYs. No Mark IVs though. There was a lot of discussion about the > > Please fill me in on anything you can tell me about Jeff's > AeroCanard... I saw it at Oshkosh, I am wondering if it has been painted > yet?? That sort of stuff... > > > If you haven't tried Rough River, put it on your agenda. Next year we will > > probably move to another state park about 100 miles West because of > > renovations planned at Rough River Park. But I'm sure we will have another > > good group. This is a real fun Fly In. > > Wanted to come this year, but didn't have the time/money to fly out... > Glad there was a good show, will try to make it next year... > > > Mark... >  >  >-- End of excerpt from Mark J Turner Jeff has done some more work on the Aerocanard. He has the interior painted and it looks good. The exterior is still in primer though. Still no wheelpants. He still has a few bugs to work out. On Sunday, as he was preparing to depart, he started up and only got three cylinders to work. He had a stuck valve. Fortunately, the engine expert was there and they set about demonstrating how to ream out the exhaust valves without removing the cylinders. Its kinda like microsurgery on engines. I had the same thing happen to me once when I was on a trip to the Bahamas. My problem was due to using the wrong engine oil. I had switched from Mobil AV1 to a cheaper brand about 10 hours earlier. Jeff said he has just changed from Mobil AV1 to some other brand about 3 engine hours ago, so he may have had the same problem. If the oil additives burn and get into the exhaust valve guides, the guides will fill up with carbon. After shutdown, the engine cools and those guides shrink around the valve stems so tight they wont move. Fortunately, this is the kind of problem that shows up on startup, not in flight. I now stick with the good 15w50 Aeroshell. It seems to have the most reliable reputation and it has been working fine for me. I'll bet Jeff will be doing that too now. People can be sort of religious about engine oil. Some will swear to this or that brand. I'm sure a lot of people have had good luck with the Mobil, Phillips and other brands, but I'll stick with good old Aeroshell since it has been working well for me for several hundred hours now. Dewey Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 09:31:40 -0500 From: campbell@ee.umn.edu (faculty S. A. Campbell) Subject: Engines When Nat stopped at Mpls on his way to Oshkosh this summer we discussed the possibility of using the IO360 in the Mark IV that I'm building. He was in favor of it as a way of keeping the W+B (Together my wife and I are about the 400 lb front seat limit). I specifically asked him about the cowl and he said that an IO360 could be used with little or no changes. Perhaps this is the same situation as the original Cozy, for which the only permissible engine was the O-235. No analysis here - just passing along what Nat told me. Steve Mark IV 473 (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0t2KUv-000Ug9C; Mon, 9 Oct 95 08:52 PDT (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0t2KUv-000qDLC; Mon, 9 Oct 95 08:52 PDT Date: Mon, 9 Oct 95 08:52:13 PST From: Brian DeFord Subject: Re[2]: Franklin Engines Text item: > I just got off the phone with Pat Goodman, who is the president of >Atlas Motors, Inc. the importers of the Franklin engines, and he is >sending me a 'bunch' of information that I will be putting on the >Internet. He also said that Nat has one of the 6-Cyl 220 HP engines and >is working to get it installed on his Cozy... If anyone talks to Nat, >could you ask and post about that?? I spoke with Nat last week and asked about the Franklin. He has ordered one and has had it delivered to Tom McNealy for fabrication of an engine mount. Tom lives a mile down the road from me and I stop in occasionally to see what he's up to. I'll keep the group posted on developments as I hear them. In my discussion with Nat, he mentioned that this winter is going to be pretty busy with other projects and he didn't know when he would get the engine installed. There are a number of items that will need to be redesigned to accomodate the engine. He is exited about the prospects as the engine is comparable in weight to the Lycoming. Brian DeFord Date: Mon, 09 Oct 95 14:24:46 EST From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" Encoding: 42 Text Subject: Re[2]: Fwd: Franklin Engines TIM: It sounds lke you may be seriously considering the Franklin engine for your project. So this is what is going on that I an presently aware of. Please do not consider the engineering considerations discussed here as approval or even reccomendation. Nat is the designer of these airplanes and until he or someone else has tested and documented the Franklin engine application, it is a high risk to plan on it. We are presently working with NAT Puffer, using a high end CAD system and StressLab (Unpayed commercial), to design the engine mount for the Franklin Engine. We are also considering designing one for the COZY three place. As far as the stresses go, the mount and it's anchor points can easily be designed to stand the aerobatic category. Our preliminary work has shown that the extra weight can be minimized by the use of light weight accessories. The engine is longer and therefore does not need as much prop extension. The engine uses a bed type mount, which works out fine on the MARK IV, but on the Original COZY the lower mount points are too high to give the proper support. The lower mount points can be moved down. This is not a big problem on a aircraft that is not built yet. It is a bigger problem on existing aircraft, but it appears that there is plenty of strength in the area needed to support the engine. It involves adding some reinforcement in the area directly behind the firewall and ahead of the landing gear angles. As far as the weight and balance goes, relocating some heavy componets (Battery) to the nose area should compensate for the extra weight. As far as the stresses and other problems caused by the increased speeds, it comes down to careful testing for flutter and control response at the higher speeds, this has to be done on every airplane built. My airplane has been tested at Red line speeds and above without problems. Careful balancing of the control surfaces is important however. The Franklin will require a new cowling, new exhaust system, new prop and spinner, and a new fuel system. The one that comes on it is a big problem to fit in, as well as being about thirty years obsolete. So you can see, we have a long way to go. Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:48:08 -0700 From: njugolini@efdsouth.navfac.navy.mil Subject: Universal Tech Motors Well, I finally saw it in Sport Aviation... So I wasn't just dreaming. "Now for the rest of the story!" I called Universal Tech Motors about 2 months ago after reading a little about their engine on the Net. I talked to the owner of the company and we had a excellent conversation on HIS dime! What a nice guy. I was a little reluctant to discuss our conversation (He OK'd me relaying the info to the other builder) until I had some confirmation that he wasn't just blowing smoke up my tailpipe. When I finally saw the engine in print, I decided to relay our discussion. ......................................................................... Universal Tech is a start up company. The company was founded by a Mechanical Engineer and an Aerospace Engineer (formally from NASA). Apparently NASA has been researching a air cooled diesel plane engine. The ME (the one who I talked to ...sorry I didn't get his name) is a experimental builder who bought a used O-360 for $8k, put a few hours on it and cracked a cylinder due to shock cooling. He had to have the engine rebuilt at a cost of $12k. He was really angry at that point and decided to do something about it. When the AE left NASA (he was working on the diesel engine), they teamed up to design an affordable engine which would cost approximately the same as an engine rebuild... $12K. They decided to switch to water-cooling, because of thermal shock problems. The price of the engine has increased to an estimated cost of $15k. So what do you get for the bucks??? -- The engine is a two stroke diesel engine .. therefore no cam shaft or valves. -- The block is cast as a single unit with the head so there are no head gasket problems. All the internals are installed from the bottom. -- The engine is actually designed for 250 hp but he derated it to 200 hp in order to assure the engine will make 2000 TBO. He said he might increase available horse power if the engine has good reliability. -- Dry sump system. Can be mounted in any orientation. -- Standard (automotive) bearings, seals and water pump. -- Standard BOSH injection system. -- The turbo will be an off the shelf turbo. -- It uses Jet A fuel and it burns 1/3 less fuel than a comparable O-360. -- The engine will be shipped with the turbo, exhaust system (the turbo exits from the side) and an internal starter. The builder will have to supply the radiator (approx. $200), expansion tank, the oil sump and alternator. -- The weight of the engine is 190 lbs WITHOUT accessories. The installation should weigh about 220 lbs. -- Engine will be shipped with a dynafocal ring. The builder will have to weld up his own mounts. -- It is set up for a constant speed prop. -- Designed to operate at 50% power with no coolent system, or 10% power with the turbo non-operational. -- Includes a 2 year warrantee. -- Overhaul cost will be $3500. -- Burns no oil. The oil used will be a synthetic oil. -- The first installation will be on a Velocity. -- First flight is scheduled for Jan 96. The ME told me the first year's production (200 engines) has already sold out. He also said if there is enough demand gearing up production should not be a problem. The injection is standard, turbo is standard, and the block....well, he has already contacted some under utilized aero space casting foundries who would love the work. Basically, he will be an engine assembler. When we talked about the pricing, he was very firm on keeping the price down. We talked about the German radial diesel (150 hp/cost $30k) and he felt the price of the engine was way out of line. He was upset that the price of his engine had slipped to $15k and want very much to drop it to his estimate original $12k. He wants to discourage competition, and similar start up companies, and put the hurts to Lycoming and Continental. Why overhaul a tired engine when you can have a new, lighter, fuel efficient engine with a 2 year warrantee? ................... Fact or fiction ... You decide ..................... I have given him my internet address so if any more information is put out I will foward it to you. Please forgive my sloppy writing. I didn't plan to expend a lot of effort on this memo. It has been said engineers are genetically predisposed to be lousy writers. I am a prime example. U.Nick Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 01:35:57 -0400 From: CozyBldr@aol.com Subject: Engine buying I would like some advice from anyone that has been through the engine buying process. I was recently offered an O-360 A2A at what seems to be a good price but, since I have not yet educated myself on the whole purchasing process, I'm not exactly sure what to ask or look for. I have spoken to a mechanic who thinks that as long as the seller (Salvage yard) will warrant the main components, it's a good deal. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Paul Stowitts N166PT Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:22:17 +1000 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:14:00 +0200 From: parkyn@citr.uq.oz.au (Nick Parkyn) Subject: Lycoming engine weights Weights for Lycoming engines are as follows: O-320 268-285lbs 160HP IO-320 280-294lbs 160HP O-360 282-301lbs 180HP IO-360 294-332lbs 200HP The above information is taken from Custom Built Sport Aircraft Handbook published by EAA. Average weight to power ratio (average lbs / hp) may be useful for comparison: O-320 1.73 : 1 IO-320 1.79 : 1 O-360 1.62 : 1 IO-360 1.57 : 1 I do not have the weight of the Franklin 220HP engine, it would be useful to compare with the above figures. Nick #00010 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 08:43:11 EST From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" Encoding: 3 Text Subject: Re: Lycoming engine weights According to the specification sheet from Atlas Motors Inc. The Franklin 6A_350 220HP @2800 rpm weighs 310 lbs with light accessories. Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:14:52 -0700 From: ljansch@ix.netcom.com (Larry Jansch) Subject: Fwd: ...no subject... > When we talked about the pricing, he was very firm on keeping the > price down. > He was upset that the price of his engine had slipped to $15k and > wants very much to drop it to his estimate original $12k. IMNSHO: 1) Why not offer the engine as a pre-balanced and pre-fitted kit? At least to start with. "Put tab A into slot B, torque to 200 lb-ft and .." That ought to keep the labor components of the engine costs down. It's not unlike people assembling airplane kits to keep costs down. I hereby volunteer to beta test the process! 2) Economy of scale. If this motor does _half_ of what the sales pitch claims it can do, he should have orders for thousands! (And not just from home builders!) The more he makes, the cheaper they get. Economics 101. Set the initial pricing to $12k, which body-slams the 200hp aviation engine market, assures him a healthy market share, if not a place in aviation history, and live off venture capital until manufacturing costs drop enough to turn a profit. Getting financing on a breakthrough product like this should not be difficult. 3) Engineers can indeed write well. They just can't spell. ;-) -Larry From: Sid & Mari Lloyd Subject: RE: Engine buying Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 17:56:28 -0600 Having been burned, I would say you can't be too careful. I bought an = O-320 from Florida and contacted the local EAA chapter president. He = referred me to a trustworthy A&P who checked the engine out as best he = could. Since it wasn't mounted or hooked up, he couldn't start it up to = check compression, but he checked the log books and inspected it. I = hadn't been run since '82. We are now in the process of a $12K total = rebuild. OUCH! Buyer beware. Next time, I would only buy a running engine that could = be checked or negotiate a price contingent on a tear-down inspection. Sid I would like some advice from anyone that has been through the engine = buying process. Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:34:30 +1000 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:26:11 +0200 From: parkyn@citr.uq.oz.au (Nick Parkyn) Subject: Weight comparisons Lycoming / Franklin engines Based on Franklin weight information from Jack Wilhelmson, I have added the Franklin 6A -350 for comparitive purposes: Weights for Lycoming engines are: O-320 268-285lbs 160HP IO-320 280-294lbs 160HP O-360 282-301lbs 180HP IO-360 294-332lbs 200HP The above information is taken from Custom Built Sport Aircraft Handbook published by EAA. Weight of Franklin engine: 6A-350 310lbs (with lightweight accessories) Average weight to power ratio (average lbs / hp) for comparison: Lycoming O-320 1.73 : 1 IO-320 1.79 : 1 O-360 1.62 : 1 IO-360 1.57 : 1 Franklin 6A-350 1.40 : 1 (Assuming average weight of 310lbs) Based on average weight and assuming that the engine mount is of similar weight,the Franklin 6A-350 is 18.5lbs heavier than the O-360, but is 3lbs lighter than IO-360. The Franklin 6A-350 has the best power to (average) weight ratio! Nick #00011 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 22:37:05 -0500 From: NBalog@aol.com Subject: Re: EA81 mod to Veri-eze (fwd) Subaru now makes a 165hp flat-four but I'm thinking Franklin, Mazda rotary or Universal Tech. for my powerplant. I called Univ. Tech a week ago and received a flyer on the engine specs as well as two sketches of the engine's dimensions which I'll eventually get around to comparing to the space available for an O-360 Lycoming. From the photos that were run in October Sport Aviation (engine shown partially fitted onto the firewall of a Velocity) this looks really promising. Called and spoke to a company making the Mazda conversions, asking for things like weight/mounting/exhaust data and dimensions and was sent a newsletter saying I'm on their mailing list, so I wait. Waiting for the field test results and Nat's results with the Franklin. Kitplanes says there's one RV-6 using the Mazda conversion, I've chatted with Tracy Cook online (CompuServe AVSIG forum) about his project (with which he is enormously satisfied) and it's nice to know there are some options as I think the cost of the Lycomings is going to continue to go up, drastically, as more folks need them for their Lancairs, RV-6's, Glasairs, Cozies, Velocities, blenders, lawn mowers and whatever the hell else they're being bolted into that's driving the market price of these engines into the 10-15 thousand range for runouts. My zwei Pfennige. . . -Norm Date: 07 Nov 95 08:34:29 EST From: Ken Miller <75202.3245@compuserve.com> "INTERNET:Dick.Finn@FNB.s" , Pinnock , Ken Reiter , Steve , Carl Stevens , John Stuart , "E. Westland" , "Charles M. Wilhite" , "Marc J. Zeitlin" Subject: Buyer Beware!!! One of my tenants is building a MKIV, and doing a great job. He is about 9 months into the project and is in a dream world about his projected first flight, as we experienced builders know is at least twice as many days, weeks, or years that you expect. The only stucture left is the canopy and turtledeck, as well as the strake fillets and winglets. He says he will fly in the Spring. I bust his cojones by asking which Spring. He was getting frustrated looking for a suitable engine core to rebuild. He had been looking in Trade-a-Plane for prices and availability. It seemed the good cores were expensive (duh), and the cheap ones were bent or came with no guarantees (duh). A gentleman (loose term) down the way from us had crashed his Twin Navion six or so years ago. It had a pair of O-360's on it. The crash had bent both flanges, but other than that, the engines looked good from the outside (red flag #1). The "gentleman" told my friend Chris that the engines were not for sale, as he was keeping them because the value was going up (red flag #2). When asked how the flanges became bent, our seller explained that there was a "gear retraction accident" on the ground. What everybody on the airport knew, however, was that the accident was basically a gear up landing (red flag #3). (The guy had been involved in three crashes in twins AT THAT AIRPORT in the last 15 years.) The engines, according to our seller, had only 12 hours since major. That says the insides should be good assuming the crank flange was straightenable (is that a word?). When asked if the seller would guarantee the case and crank if he did decide to sell, the seller said NO (red flag #4). Predictably, the seller "broke down" and decided to sell the engines. Chris (ignoring my vehement warnings) and another friend on the airport bought both engines for $9000. Subsequent inspection after teardown revealed that both cranks were unusable and both cases had been repaired before and would take $1500 each to yellow tag. According to Mattituck, the engines had been "put together with junk parts" the cheapest way possible, in keeping with the seller's reputation of not wanting to spend any money on his airplanes. Basically, they both ended up with very little to show for their nine grand. Something good can come of this. Remember my motto: RULE #1 THERE ARE NO GOOD, CHEAP DEALS IN AVIATION!!!!!!! RULE #2 IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE COME ACROSS A GOOD, CHEAP DEAL, REFER TO RULE #1!!!!!! There are many many good engines out ther to be had. If will take some time and, unfortunately, money to find them. If you pay less for an engine, the seller can come back and say, "what did you expect for that kind of money". If you pay a little more, then you can demand a written guarantee. The most important thing to remember when buying a core to rebuild is that the seller must guarantee the Case AND Crank. If he refused to do that, then move on. You will be in for a screwin'. Ask Chris. (he didn't even get a kiss) When buying a core, you assume the cylinders are trash and the cam is, also. It's a good idea to replace those items with new if you want a dependable engine. That adds $5000 to the overhaul. If you get a good core for $4500 and spend another $5500 in parts for the overhaul, you have a good, like new engine. Anything less is a compromise, and should be handled as such. (If you don't replace the cylinders, expect a shorter life out of them). BUYER BEWARE Ken Miller 75202,3245@compuserve.com Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 23:31:39 -0500 From: RSiebert1@aol.com Subject: Remanufactured Engine Quote Today I talked with Monty Barrett, Jr. at Barrett Performance Aircraft, in Tulsa, OK. They do custom engine remanufacturing and modifying for experimental, aerobatic and racing aircraft. They also soup up the engines for higher horsepower output. We arrived at the following engine configuration for $23,000.00 (no exchange core). Zero-timed Lycoming O-360A4M with solid crankshaft, but substituting an overhauled Bendix fuel injection system in place of the Ellison TBI (weight is similar) and primer system. This also removes the need for carb heat. With my furnished Electroair dual electronic ignition system instead of mags, and their improvements to the engine during rework (9:1 compression, balancing, porting, blueprinting, etc.) they estimate an output of 210 horsepower, and a TBO of 1500 to 1800 hours. New accessories include fuel pump, B&C starter, B&C 60-amp alternator, and B&C LR-3 voltage regulator with battery temp. sensor. Other goodies include chromed rocker covers, and intake ducts; installed intercylinder baffles, engine painted any color I want, all engine test cell data, modification records, parts lists, and A.D. note status included with the new logbook. Oh yes, they offered to buy me dinner when I went there to watch the test cell run, and accept delivery of the finished product. Such a deal ;-} Lead time is six weeks from receipt of deposit (50-66%). Sound like a fair price? AIRPOWER offers an IO-360 (outright) for alot more $$$. Even their O-360F (outright) was $22,800.00. Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 14:12:50 EST From: "Nick J Ugolini" Subject: Universal Tech Engine I just recently recieved an update letter from the subj company, I guess in was in response to the telephone call I made a few months ago. I thought you all would like to read my update. The price is still estimated to be appox $15k. Basiclly it does not say much more than the e-mail I sent out. I scaned it into my computer so you can blame my scanner for the correctness. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- V-4 Turbo Diesel Project Update UNIVERSAL TECH November 16, 1995 >From Douglas A. Doers 10698 S. 76th Street Franklin, Wl 53132 FAX/phone: (414) 425-5963 THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN THE V-4 TURBO DIESEL. This is the first of a series of periodic progress updates on the V-4 Turbo Diesel Project. Progress has been painfully slow, and I know there will be more than a few "I told you so" utterances from those of you following this project. However, the results to date are encouraging, and we see the light at the end of the tunnel. Part of the pain of the process is in making timeline estimates, and then finding all the ways in which you do not control the critical path. Completion projections at both Sun n Fun and Oshkosh this year, and even in an earlier cover letter which some of you have received, are good examples of that. This update format will replace such estimates. It will contain the information available on the engine and a description of project status, to allow you to develop your own feel for timelines. I will only communicate a date for first production shipments when I am confident I have identified and managed all the critical path items. I regret if some of you are on a path to need an engine sooner than this one will be available, but it is important to do this right, and not just fast, so that we can all enjoy the long-term benefits of a quality product professionally produced and distributed -- which is still my goal. I am devoting full time to this project. Thank you for all the support and enthusiasm expressed for this project. I agree with the comments many of you have made that a new engine is long overdue, and that one meeting the design criteria of the turbo diesel would be a great leap forward. We are working very hard to make that dream come true. Sincerely, **signature -------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2 V-4 Turbo Diesel Project Update UNIVERSAL TECH November 16, 1995 BASIC DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS: * designed from the ground up as a general aviation engine * designed for simplicity, durability, fuel efficiency and power PROJECT STATUS OVERVIEW: * the first production-scale engine (E#1) has been hand manufactured and run briefly multiple times in a no-load condition on a test stand * initial test stand runs focused on starting characteristics, oil consumption and fuel control: while very promising, some technical adjustments are still underway to satisfy, requirements in these areas * E#1 is now being prepared for dyno testing * E#1 was mounted on the Velocity prior to current preparations, and flight test sensors have been installed-, flight testing can begin shortly after the engine is returned to the aircraft FUTURE OBJECTIVES IF E#l IS PROVEN VIABLE: * production manufacturing, distribution and support for the upright V-4 * initial deliveries under Experimental status for Velocity C standard delivered package to include starter, oil pump, fuel pump, water pump, all internal lines, turbocharger, and engine-to-turbocharger exhaust system (included in past price estimates), and a firewall "forward" package consisting of alternator, heat exchangers, engine mount and turbo exhaust pipe (not included in past price estimates) * support for integration into other types of A/C, working with those A/C manufacturers, including development of firewall "foward" packages where practical Certification process started as soon as design is stabilized * future design evolution's, in priority order: * inverted V-4 * upright and inverted V-8 * I 00 hp versions of the V-4 * V-6 (would require a more major redesign) 28 Dec 1995 18:25:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 18:25:16 -0500 (EST) From: TEDBARROW@delphi.com Subject: exhaust length ? X-Vms-To: INTERNET"cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com" Greetings Pilots, For exhaust pipes that end near the prop hub per Gary Herzler and on a 3 blade props two questions: 1) where do you cut off the pipes or how much clearance between prop and tail pipe? 2) how much smoke is acceptable on the prop? Thanks. Ted Date: 28 Dec 95 19:54:55 EST From: Chuck Wolcott <75501.356@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: exhaust question Ted Barrow asked: "a 3 blade props two questions: 1) where do you cut off the pipes or how much clearance between prop and tail pipe? 2) how much smoke is acceptable on the prop?" I have a three blade prop, with the blades ~6.5" from the exhaust tips. Exhaust system is the stock - straight out the back design. Using the temperature strips described below, I am getting temperatures in excess of 225 deg F on the prop surface, with some discoloration. FYI - Terry Schubert of Central States fame is currently collecting data from EZ type fliers. He has distributed temperature sensative stick on tapes for application to various suggested locations. The prop hub, on prop blades at exhaust impingement, et al. He will be compiling the data from pilots utilizing the "inside the cowl" exhaust systems and the conventional design. There have been several incidents, or at least several props damaged, that I am aware of using the "inside the cowl" system. I have spoken to an EZ pilot, at the recent R.A.C.E speed runs at SoCal International Apt., about what speed and cooling advantages he had seen in his "inside the cowl" exhaust application. He claimed that his cooling (i.e. CHT's) were unchanged and had not been able to detect any increase in speed. I am sure much more data will be forthcoming. After all, we are flying "EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT." As for me....I am not currently convinced that inside the cowl exhaust is a good idea, due to increased prop extension and prop hub temperatures. (be sure to evaluate Terry's data, most likely to be published in the Spring Central States letter.) Fly and Build Safe + Happy and Healthy New Year - Chuck Wolcott