Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 07:44:26 CST (-0600) From: JerryKennel Subject: Throttle Body Injector I am at the point in construction of my Mark IV that I need to decide if I will use the carburetor that came with my O-360 or should I purchase a Throttle body injector? Does anyone have some advise to give? Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 14:58:27 -0500 From: Nigel Field Subject: Engine Data Hi Gang, Its -30C up here in Canada, too cold for glass work so I just finished the engine for my Cozy III. I think there are some folks interested in alternative power so thought I would pass this along. Its a Subaru EJ-22 2.2 Litre 16 valve that I have converted for aircraft use. It has a carbon fibre intake manifold, carter carb, reluctor ignition on one cam end, Suzuki alternator and Toyota starter. The reduction is from Lou Ross at 2.17 ratio. It should produce 150 honest HP as is without race tuning. I just weighed it at 242 lbs which includes all but oil and cooling. The additional weight should be 10 for coolant, 4 rad, 8 oil, and 5 for hoses and clamps giving a flying weight of 269 lbs about the same as an equipped 0-235. The C/G is 4.25 inches forward of the bellhousing face. Its a lot smaller than an 0-320 and will cowl in with nice lines and no bumbs. There is enough room underneath the engine for the 3" thick rad. I'm really pleased with it. If anyone wants more details send me an Email and I'll be happy to help. On another subject, my buddies friend's uncle who is not a member of this mail list, is real pissed because he makes fibre glass bird house kits and the audobon society are going to sue him because they think the openings are too big and cookoo birds can raid the nest and he should have done trials first. Since we are all glass builders he asked me to post his concerns. I will keep you all updated when I get his response. Happy building, Nigel Date: Mon, 05 Feb 96 17:36:06 EST From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" Subject: Re: Engine Data Nigel: I an interested in your Suburu Engine project. I have some questions. Can a 2.2 liter engine produce the same hp as a 5.3 liter aircraft engine for sustained periods without failure? If not, what is the derated horsepower for aircraft use? Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:50:46 From: JRaerocad@gnn.com (Jeff Russell) Subject: Re: IO-360/O-360 >1) Something I didn't know for those of you considering an > IO-360. The >lastest issue of KITPLANES talks about the new RV-8 and it's has > a 200-hp >Lycoming IO-360-A16D, anyhow the article goes on to state the > -A16D fuel >consumption is less than a carburetted 0-360 at equal power.(call > me an oaf >cause I didn't know that) >John Wilemski (JQUESTCOZY) cozy #227 I also have had both 0-360-A1A an now the LI0-360-C1C6 the fuel consumption is less than the 0-360 at equal power. More HP, Less Fuel AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 23:15:39 -0700 From: Eric Westland Subject: Dan Brown Engines Nat mentions engines rebuilt by Dan Brown in the newsletter. Has anyone talked with him or purchased one of his engines? Eric Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 10:08:17 -0500 From: Marcnadine@aol.com Subject: Re: Dan Brown Engines Eric Westland writes: >Nat mentions engines rebuilt by Dan Brown in the newsletter. Has anyone >talked with him or purchased one of his engines? > >Eric > I spoke with Dan Brown early this week about his engines. They sell for $6,000 to $9.000 depending on what you want and what he finds in the way of parts. Dan said that he does not rebuild engines, he makes an engine from parts he finds. Mostly all used parts. I asked it I were to buy one of the engines and fly it for a while, could I take it to a AP and have it overhauled and certified, the responce was NO. The crank and cases he finds are always out of spec and could never be certified. But he said they run great. No thanks Marc N425CZ Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 23:07:11 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Walsh Subject: Re: Dan Brown Engines On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Eric Westland wrote: > > Nat mentions engines rebuilt by Dan Brown in the newsletter. Has anyone > talked with him or purchased one of his engines? > > Eric > I talked to him a short time ago. He didn't seem to be the most sociable person but did tell me he has various engines both certified and not pricing was about going from $9,000.00 for the O-360. Bill W Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 10:46:45 -0400 From: Marcnadine@aol.com Subject: Re: Dan Brown Engines In a message dated 96-04-07 00:10:41 EDT, walsh@seminole.iag.net (Bill Walsh) writes: >> >> Nat mentions engines rebuilt by Dan Brown in the newsletter. Has anyone >> talked with him or purchased one of his engines? >> >> Eric >> > I talked to him a short time ago. He didn't seem to be the most >sociable person but did tell me he has various engines both certified and not >pricing was about going from $9,000.00 for the O-360. > Bill W Bill, After the conversation I had with Mr. Dan Brown last week, he definitely will not, does not SELL CERTIFIED engines. I told him I was only interested in getting hold of a CERTIFIED engine and Mr. Brown said he could not help me. Marc N435CZ From: Lee Devlin Subject: Re: Dan Brown Engines Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 11:35:35 MDT Marc wrote: > Bill, After the conversation I had with Mr. Dan Brown last week, he > definitely will not, does not SELL CERTIFIED engines. I told him I was only > interested in getting hold of a CERTIFIED engine and Mr. Brown said he could > not help me. I think that part of the problem with using a CERTIFIED engine in an experimental is that they need to be maintained the same way as a certified engine in a GA plane in order to maintain the certification. That is, they have to adhere to all the paperwork, annual inspection, AD's, A&P/AI signatures for any work not covered under Part 61, in order to keep them in a certified state. This is only a concern if you intend to remove the engine and sell it to someone who wants to use it in a certified plane at a later date. I intend to use a lightweight alternator & starter, Ellison carb, electronic ignition, etc., and I believe that with these accessories, the engine loses its FAA 'certification.' Maybe what we have here is just a miscommunication on what Dan and Marc consider the term 'certified' to mean. I also remember that there is a difference in the amount of time you need to fly an experimental (40 hrs. vs. 25 hrs.) before leaving the 25 mi. radius of the airport if you are using a 'certified' engine. Maybe someone else can elaborate on this. Lee Devlin From: "Rob Cherney" Organization: Ellicott City, Maryland Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 16:44:14 -0400 Subject: Re: Dan Brown Engines > > Bill, After the conversation I had with Mr. Dan Brown last week, he > > definitely will not, does not SELL CERTIFIED engines. I told him I was only > > interested in getting hold of a CERTIFIED engine and Mr. Brown said he could > > not help me. > > (some stuff deleted) > > I also remember that there is a difference in the amount of time you > need to fly an experimental (40 hrs. vs. 25 hrs.) before leaving the > 25 mi. radius of the airport if you are using a 'certified' engine. > Maybe someone else can elaborate on this. If I recall correctly, you need to fly off 40 hours if you have an uncertified engine/propellor combination, 25 hours otherwise. Since most of us will be using an experimental prop, the 40 hours would apply anyhow. Am I correct on this? Rob- +--------------------------------------------------------+ |Robert Cherney Home Phone: (410)465-5598 | |Ellicott City, Maryland e-mail: cherney@clark.net | +--------------------------------------------------------+ Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 19:12:23 -0400 From: JHocut@aol.com Subject: Re: "Certified Engines" At Sun-N-Fun last year at one of the FAA seminars, I was told that in a homebuild aircraft with a "certified" engine that, yes, an A&P had to sign off on engine work. However, if you removed the nameplate, that engine was no longer certified and you could work on it yourself. As far as the question of 25 hr vs. 40 hr fly off time, as I recall that's a case by case assesment that's made based on airframe, engine, and prop. If someone doesn't come up with an exacting answer before I do, I'll ask that question to a couple of FAA types and see what they have to say. Jim Hocut jhocut@aol.com Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 20:17:58 -0500 From: Larry Jansch Subject: Re: Dan Brown Engines > Bill, After the conversation I had with Mr. Dan Brown last week, he > definitely will not, does not SELL CERTIFIED engines. I told him I was only > interested in getting hold of a CERTIFIED engine and Mr. Brown said he could > not help me. > > (a lot of stuff deleted) It sounds like the real question is: Has any of Dan's engines broken down in flight, or otherwise contributed to unscheduled contact with the terrain? Does anybody know about that? -Larry Mk.IV #461 Almost done with Chapter 4!! Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 22:23:40 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Walsh Subject: Re: Dan Brown Engines On Sun, 7 Apr 1996, Lee Devlin wrote: > > Marc wrote: > > > Bill, After the conversation I had with Mr. Dan Brown last week, he > > definitely will not, does not SELL CERTIFIED engines. I told him I was only > > interested in getting hold of a CERTIFIED engine and Mr. Brown said he could > > not help me. > > I think that part of the problem with using a CERTIFIED engine in an > experimental is that they need to be maintained the same way as a > certified engine in a GA plane in order to maintain the certification. > That is, they have to adhere to all the paperwork, annual inspection, > AD's, A&P/AI signatures for any work not covered under Part 61, in order > to keep them in a certified state. This is only a concern if you intend > to remove the engine and sell it to someone who wants to use it in a > certified plane at a later date. I intend to use a lightweight > alternator & starter, Ellison carb, electronic ignition, etc., and I > believe that with these accessories, the engine loses its FAA > 'certification.' Maybe what we have here is just a miscommunication on > what Dan and Marc consider the term 'certified' to mean. > This maybe the answer to the discrepency... Being an A&P I could keep a certified engine certified but, but as you point out what would the difference be unless you planned on selling it as certified?? Just more work! > I also remember that there is a difference in the amount of time you > need to fly an experimental (40 hrs. vs. 25 hrs.) before leaving the > 25 mi. radius of the airport if you are using a 'certified' engine. > Maybe someone else can elaborate on this. The above is correct. THX BW > > Lee Devlin > Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 11:22:28 -0400 From: JHocut@aol.com Subject: Re: "Certified Engines" Got this straight from the FAA: This subject is covered in Advisory Circular 20-27D (Certification and Operation of Amateur-Built Aircraft). Specifically, Paragraph 13 which states: a. Amateur-built airplanes and rotorcraft will initially be limited to operation within an assigned flight test area for at least 25 hours when a type certificated (FAA-approved) engine/propeller combination is installed, or 40 hours when a noncertificated (i.e., modified type certificated or automobile) engine/propeller combination is installed. .... In other words, using a non certified prop = 40 hrs. Using a certified prop with a certified engine which has had the nameplate removed (making it non-certified) = 40 hrs. Jim Hocut jhocut@aol.com Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:35:53 -0400 From: william l kleb Subject: [rec.aviation.homebuilt] Deltahawk V-4 Turbo Diesel i just posted this to rec.aviation.homebuilts newsgroup ...i thought i'd send it to the list in case you don't read r.a.h. while talking with doug, i got the impression that his former partner is going to produce the original engine, so we should have a nice, competitive environment. ahh, to be able to fly the world and not have to worry about fuel availability... ------- Start of forwarded message ------- in the interest of keeping r.a.h "in the know" i obtained permission to post the contents of the letter doug doers recently sent out concerning his new engine. this engine is related to the one pictured in sport aviation several months ago under the name universal tech v-4 turbo diesel. in speaking with doug, he appears to still be committed to his low price (~15K), saying he'd rather have volume sales... deltahawk recreational diesel engines deltahawk, inc. 10698 s. 76th street franklin, wi 53132 phone/fax: 414.425.5963 april 9, 1996 thank you for you continued interest in the v-4 turbo diesel. Some of you have become aware that the structure of the project has changed, and with this letter i want to provide you all with information on that. i have formally terminated my association with kevin sweeney and universal tech, effective november 14th, 1995. sometime during the two days prior to that, my hangar was broken into, the prototype engine was taken off the velocity airframe, and i have not seen the prototype engine since then. negotiations between my j. p. brooks (who owns the airframe and had purchased the engine) and mr. sweeney have broken down and litigation is now underway. although i was initially hopeful that the negotiations would be successful and i would be able to continue working on this joint project with universal tech, we were unable to resolve our differences and i launched a new and independent design effort to create an improved, production-worthy v-4 turbo diesel. that project is well underway, and i expect to be able to deliver the first engines in august or september. as you can see from the letterhead, i have incorporated the production company. i have also leased production space and have secured initial financing, so we are moving forward quickly. i anticipate being the successful, high-quality producer of an excellent new general aviation engine. i thank you all for your patience with this complex project. although the events of november seemed a major setback at the time, the redesign needed to be done in any case and there has been rapid progress on the deltahawk diesel. [...irrelevant sales pitch removed...] it is my plan to have a flying diesel at oshkosh, and we will be there in any case in booth c101. please stop by and see us if you're there! douglas a. doers president --- bill kleb (w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov) 73 bellanca 7gcbc citabria 99 kleb cozy 4 ------- End of forwarded message ------- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 08:22:50 -0500 From: tims@enet.net (Tim Sullivan) Subject: Franklin Engine FYI: Saw Nat last night at my EAA meeting. He gave a quick talk on the franklin and played a video tape from Velocity on their "truck bed" testing. The tape depicted the predictable results of a tuned exhaust system. w/o the tuned pipe it would only reach a static 2700-2800 rpm. w/tuned pipes it went up to 3100 rpm. Seemed interesting since the engine is only rated for 2800 (about) rpm's. It appeared to be running rough at idle esp. for a 6 cylinder. It did perform the useful function of pushing a 4000 lb 4x4 truck around the airport hanger area at 35 mph. I was hoping they would bring it out to the runway and let it really go :). Anyway Shirley was their but expressed less than confident feeling about this early showing of the engine (she really likes the security of the lycoming and who could blame her). Nat is awaiting his new tuned pipes before proceeding. My guess is that fitting the who kit and kaboodle in the back of a Cozy is going to be interesting. At 3100 rpm the Hp is more than 220. Nat is expecting really good climbs, maybe up to 3000 fpm and a economy cruise of 220 mph. This of course is complete speculation and time will tell what will really happen. Start saving those pennies. My guess, the complete engine w/equipment will be around 16K (12K or so engine only). Tim Sullivan (tims@enet.net) Phoenix, AZ | * | Cozy MK IV Builder #470 |-----(/)-----| The journey begins 8/10/95 / \ Current Status: Ch 9 o o Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 19:52:13 From: JRaerocad@gnn.com (Jeff Russell) Subject: Re: Franklin Engine Franklin engine weight is 15 lbs more than the angle valve IO-360 that we used in the AeroCanard and Velocitys said Scott Swing at Lakeland. They tried the long exhaust that Franklin said would work, but no change in RPM. They tried changing the fuel injection to a carburetor and they went from 2750 to 3100 RPM. They use three pipes into one exiting out about at the center cylinder straight down. No exhaust through the prop. The sound of the airplane was much quieter than the other Velocitys with this type of exhaust system. They are going to get a larger prop to see what this will do. Our IO-360 weight was 330 less oil. Add 15 lbs to that (345lbs) plus a worse empty CG on the 6 cylinder and I think balancing a airplane that had a O-360-A1A (300 lbs) is going to be fun. We change three things in our AeroCanard to balance the 30 lbs of extra weight. Carbon cowls,a 12 lb EZ lift and the oil cooler on NG-30's. We ended up heavier on the nose wheel than Nat's plans model. Its only a balancing game. Nat might want to install a EZ lift also. He and I only weigh 155 lbs. I have to carry 25 lbs in the nose to keep me in CG. Some one that has some time, I would like to see a new Weight and empty CG for Nat's airplane. I don't know if his CG info is on the Net??? If not, I can give what's in the Cozy operation manual. I think for Nat to safely fly in CG he will end up with 50+ lbs in the nose to balance??? The nose compartment might not be large enought. There are at least 4 Canard airplanes (Berkut, AeroCanard and Cozy MkIV) that are installing IO-540's. This engine is 80 lbs heavier then ours. The more weight you add must be countered with nose weight. Useful load can go up with more HP, but so does empty and so does wing loading. Its going to be interesting to see the end results from all that is going on. >Saw Nat last night at my EAA meeting. He gave a quick talk on theFranklin >and played a video tape from Velocity on their "truck bed" testing. The >tape depicted the predictable results of a tuned exhaust system. w/o the >tuned pipe it would only reach a static 2700-2800 rpm. w/tuned pipes it >went up to 3100 rpm. Seemed interesting since the engine is only rated for >2800 (about) rpm's. Are you sure that the video tape was from Velocity Aircraft. Again I was told from Scott and Dwane Swing that no change was seen with the longer exhaust??? AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 17:12:37 -0400 From: Nigel Field Subject: Re: Franklin Engine At 08:22 AM 4/24/96 -0500, Tim Sullivan wrote regarding thr Franklin engine: >FYI: > >Saw Nat last night at my EAA meeting. He gave a quick talk on the franklin >and played a video tape from Velocity on their "truck bed" testing. The >tape depicted the predictable results of a tuned exhaust system. w/o the >tuned pipe it would only reach a static 2700-2800 rpm. w/tuned pipes it >went up to 3100 rpm. Seemed interesting since the engine is only rated for >2800 (about) rpm's. Much stuff deleted.......... > Nat is expecting really good climbs, maybe up to 3000 fpm and a economy cruise of 220 mph. This of course is complete speculation and time will tell what will really happen. > Very interesting report from Tim/Nat but it just didnt add up. If the franklin is specified at 2800 max then it should be prop loaded accordingly to ensure that it doesn't exceed that RPM except for short excursions. This means the HP will come down closer to the 220 value. Yes tuned pipes will certainly provide more torque but 4 pipes all coiled up in the cowling?? WOW! There are other, simpler methods to accomplish exhaust tuning. SA had some good articles in the last two issues. The 3000 ft/min was what really got to me though so I ran some quick numbers. Given 2 CZ4s, identical except for the engine/prop and weight. One has a 180 HP 0-360 and a TO weight of 1800 Lbs, the other a 220 HP Franklin and is 30 Lbs heavier (roughly from the weight data that I have). The Shaft HP delta is 40 and when multiplied by prop efficiency of 80% the THRUST HP delta is 32, and thats what counts. Given that 1 HP is 33000 ft lbs per min we get (32*33000)/1832 = 576 ft/min increase in climb, well short of Nats speculation. This assumes that the prop has been increased in diameter to absorb and couple this extra power, but it hasnt been since its diameter limited. This means more pitch is needed, which is also the case for the higher cruise speed to prevent RPM overspeed, and/or more blade area (activity factor). This will of course reduce the above climb delta somewhat, but by how much, and just what is the right prop? For this part I loaded the data into Don Bates' "Propopt" performance prediction application which has proved to be very accurate on past data that I have run. I locked the Diameter at 68 inch for both and let it solve 5 variables namely; Activity factor, Pitch, RPMcruise, Velocity cruise, Rpm Climb. It outputs lots of neat data but the important stuff follows: power TO weight Cruise(mph) Climb(ft/min) Prop 1-0360 180 1800 223.7 1344 68/82.8 Franklin 220 1830 243.4 1544 68/86.1 >From this it can be seen that a more realistic climb delta is 200 ft/min given the requirement to re-pitch the prop for the higher cruise. There are of course an infinite number of combinations of blade area,# blades, pitch, dia, all of which can be solved with this application and which influence the performance numbers, but I just compared apples to apples. I post this for two reasons. I dont want to see folks dissapointed when the day of judgment comes on their test flight and find possibly disappointing results based on speculation. I fully aggree with Tim on this point. Also I can send the full data OP as an attachment to anyone who wants to examine it in more detail. Simply put you cant get something for nothing no matter how hard you wish. The Franklin looks like a good engine to me so far, but it wont do magic. I encourage and welcome any debate or discussion on this subject. Nigel Field Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 18:55:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Tech Support - Rick Subject: Re: Franklin Engine On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Nigel Field wrote: > > > Nat is expecting really good climbs, maybe up to 3000 fpm and a economy > cruise of 220 mph. This of course is complete speculation and time will > tell what will really happen. We ain't jets as they say down here in the south. The other consideration is the closer we approach the 2000 fpm mark, the closer we get to decompression sickness, known commonly as the bends. I would be very careful in this area. > results based on speculation. I fully aggree with Tim on this point. Also > I can send the full data OP as an attachment to anyone who wants to examine > it in more detail. Also, think about the prop here, If you spin at that speed, tips go supersonic, which means lost efficiency. Other point here, if you want that kind of rpm(3100), sounds like prsu time, drop the prop speed down to 1500, and increase the pitch and blade area. My thoughts, Engineer to pilot: expect flame Pilot to Engineer: Damn the flak, full mach ahead. Engineer to pilot: Light speed for fools now selected. Pilot: ? Engineer: I improved the engines at that last fuel stop. Rick ;) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 09:40:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Tech Support - Rick Subject: COZY: Re: Franklin Engine No I do not. If you wish you can contact the FAA and confirm for yourself. Rick On Sat, 27 Apr 1996 M500K@aol.com wrote: > The bends?? Surely you jest!!! > Date: Mon, 6 May 96 07:50:04 -0800 From: Eric_Westland@msvl.wednet.edu (Eric Westland) Organization: Marysville School Dist. Subject: COZY: Lycoming Engine > > A reputable source of engines (here in florida) is Quality Aircraft > Salvage located in Groveland (west of orlando). The owner is Don > Huntington, phone# 800-752-6399 (800-PLANE99). He doesn't have engines > at give-away prices, but a bunch of us in the central fla. area have > bought GOOD airworthy engines and/or parts from Don. He's familiar with > experimentals, owns a Long-EZ, and is HONEST. If you call him, please > mention my name. Nothing in it for me, I'd just appreciate the note. > > Hope this will help ... > > Safe Flying, Wayne Lanza > > I followed up on Wayne's lead (I was impressed with the owner just like Wayne said) and called Don last Thursday. This morning, I passed up what I believe may be a fine engine, not because of anything I heard, but more because I did not feel that I personally knew enough yet about what all to ask before I sent off a check across country. I wanted to make you folks aware of what I found in case any of you wanted to follow up on this engine. It is a O-360-A4K that came out of a Gruman Tiger. The engine has about 814 hours since new and is your basic Lycoming except that it has a horizontal carb. Don went out of his way to answer my questions and I actually had money down on it, but like I said, I just was not ready to proceed. Don Faxed me the log book and it all looked fine. I contacted the mechanic that did the most recent work on it and he said it came out of a beautiful airplane. The logs showed to me it had been taken care of well. I also contacted the pilot that owned it before and he was helpful in telling me what he knew. It crashed into the sand after loss of control with minor injuries. The cowling was not impacted, but the rest was pretty much tatered. There was a prop strike into the sand and the owner told me that he had the throttle wide open when he impacted the ground, but the prop damage does not look like that was the case acording to the photos Don has. Since the accident was a couple of years ago, I was concerned about corrosion, so Don looked into all of the cyliders with a bore scope and found a little rust in one. He removed it and took it to a IA and he pronounced it healthy. Having the cylinder off gave him a chance to inspect the inside if the crankcase as well as the cam and it looked fine. Even so, Don wanted to make sure the rust did not cause a problem, so he knocked $500 off the price which brought it down to $8,500. Not free as Wayne says, but when I called Nat early on to ask him about it, he thought it was a steal. It seems reasonable to me. So, that's pretty much what I know about it. I may be an idiot for passing it up, but I need to educate myself a little more before I spend that kind of cash over the phone. I felt bad that Don went to much effort to check it all out for me, but hopefully one of you can benefit from what he found out. If one of you decides to buy it, I would like to hear from you to know what process you went through in deciding. I'll be happy to call you on my nickel. At the same time, feel free to contact me if I can answer anything for you. Later, Eric -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Marysville School District, Marysville, Washington, USA -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Date: Wed, 15 May 96 11:47:51 -0800 From: Eric_Westland@msvl.wednet.edu (Eric Westland) Organization: Marysville School Dist. Subject: COZY: Franklin Engine Purchase? I have been doing a good deal of engine research the last few weeks and while learning a lot, still am not sure as to which way to go - overhauled O-360 or the Franklin. They cost about the same unless you have a good core, something next to impossible to find. My have talked with Pat at Atlas Motors a few times now and like the Franklin - I am just waiting to see what Nat finds out. If Nat gets it all figured out (exhaust, weight and balance, cooling, etc.), my current thinking is that I will probably go with the Franklin. I am attracted to the extra horsepower, the six cylinder smoothness and the shorter prop extension. In my conversations with Pat, I received the following prices: Basic motor : $12,744 Carb: $1,470 (the Ellison TBI is $1,500) Light Weight Starter : $350 Light Weight Alternator, 60 Amps : $140 New Slick Mags, Harness, Plugs : $1,470 Fuel Pump : $150 That brings the cost up to about $16,300 for a new 6 cylinder engine - more than I ever thought I would pay, but within a thousand or two of a O-360 that has been overhauled (of course, if one of you has a source for the same at half the price, I would love to know :-)). Now, if you are thinking like I am and thinking a Franklin may be in your future, I want to propose the following : I asked Pat what kind of deal he could put together if a half-dozen or so of us purchased at the same time. He told me he would have to think about it some, so I could not get a specific discount number, but I got the impression that it could be around 10%, making the cost around $14,700. So, is anyone else out there initially interested at this point? I don't need a firm commitment, I am not even certain at this point, but if this becomes the engine of choice for some of us, we could save some money. Eric -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Marysville School District, Marysville, Washington, USA -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 15:26:30 -0500 From: tims@enet.net (Tim Sullivan) Subject: Re: COZY: Franklin Engine Purchase? Eric_Westland@msvl.wednet.edu (Eric Westland) wrote: >Now, if you are thinking like I am and thinking a Franklin may be in your >future, I want to propose the following : I asked Pat what kind of deal he >could put together if a half-dozen or so of us purchased at the same time. He >told me he would have to think about it some, so I could not get a specific >discount number, but I got the impression that it could be around 10%, making >the cost around $14,700. Eric: Nat purchased the franklin with a 10% discount. So I can't see this to be a possible problem for Pat to discount that much. Just thought I'd let ya know. ---------------- Q: Anyone out there sucessfully installing an IO 360? Tim Sullivan (tims@enet.net) Phoenix, AZ | * | Cozy MK IV Builder #470 |-----(/)-----| The journey begins 8/10/95 / \ Current Status: Ch 9 o o Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 07:26:57 From: JRaerocad@gnn.com (Jeff Russell) Subject: Re: COZY: Franklin Engine Purchase? >Tim Sullivan wrote: >Q: >Anyone out there sucessfully installing an IO 360? Yes, at least 4 of the Cozy/AeroCanards have IO and LIO-360-C1E6 engines on and flying Doug Koster - Cozy MkIV (plans built champion - Oskhosh Don Saunders - AeroCanand RG Bruce Elkind - Cozy/AeroCanard Me - AeroCanard Colby Farmer - Cozy/AeroCanard Tim Jones - Cozy/AeroCanard All have the largest IO-360 angle valve engine out there. Engine weight 337 lbs. I am sure there are more out there using this engine. 4 out of the 6 are flying in my list. My engine cost $9500.00 with all the goodies attached. Found it at Earl Aircraft / Hastings, Fl. TT 3100 hours TTSMOH 37 hours that gives me 1963 left to TBO It sounds like TBO on the Franklin is 1200 Is it such a better price??? AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 09:35:28 +0000 From: Eric Westland Subject: Re: COZY: Franklin Engine Purchase? Jeff Russell wrote: > My engine cost $9500.00 with all the goodies attached. Found it at Earl > Aircraft / Hastings, Fl. TT 3100 hours TTSMOH 37 hours that gives me > 1963 left to TBO. I don't know how long ago you purchased this and there are always a few good deals out there, but I can say after a million inquiries that this same engine today would sell for about $15,000 if you could find it. I would love to be corrected and if Earl Aircraft is selling equivalent engines today at these prices, please give me their phone number, but to compare the prices of engines a couple of years ago with those of today is pointless as the demand for the O-360 has driven the price to "gold fever" levels. >It sounds like TBO on the Franklin is 1200. Is it such a > better price??? > The official FAA TBO of the Franklin at this point is 1500 hours. As we all know, TBO is not a guarantee it will go that long, nor is it required that the engine be majored at TBO time. To me, a much more meaningful number when determining the value of any engine is the TOTAL time on it. I have no statistics to back this up and an engine that has been overhauled correctly (this can be a huge variable) may well make it to the next TBO without any cylinder/crankcase cracks, etc., but to me it seems like common sense tells us parts wear out over time and that every overhauled engine is going to be different. Throw into the equation the unknown elements of the engine's prior history and the limits to which it was overhauled and it makes figuring most of this all the more difficult. Don't forget as well that once your overhauled engine reaches TBO again, some parts may not be able to be brought back to service limits and some of those parts are very expensive (what isn't?). Does this make a new Franklin a better value than an overhauled Lycoming? I am not convinced at this point if it is better or worse, but if Nat and the folks at Velocity get the bugs worked out and if the true costs are about the same, I'll go with the new engine. I would like to hear other thoughts - it's big bucks either way. Eric Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 14:11:36 +0000 From: Eric Westland Subject: Re: COZY: Franklin Engines Judd Stewart wrote: > > I have some concerns about the availability of parts for the Franklin's. > > A friend of mine is a member of a Stenson Club of Southern California and they > are having trouble getting parts for there Franklin motors. They use a > different model than what Nat is proposing but the source is the same. > > Apparently the MFG. is more interested in selling completed motors than parts. > They build to order ( in lots of 100 motors) and shut down the factory (send > everyone home) until another order for 100 motors comes in. > > I suggest all who consider this motor (my self included) address the after the > sale support prior to purchasing the motor. If the motor is not supported with > spare parts its hardly a "deal". > > judd stewart > 619.552.5581 > judd_stewart@cpqm.saic.com This is a good question and one I hope we can get a satifactory answer to. Owners and mechanics of Franklins would be an excellent source for impartial, experienced feedback. -eric Date: 17 May 1996 09:23:11 -0700 From: "Judd Stewart" Subject: COZY: Franklin Engines I have some concerns about the availability of parts for the Franklin's. A friend of mine is a member of a Stenson Club of Southern California and they are having trouble getting parts for there Franklin motors. They use a different model than what Nat is proposing but the source is the same. Apparently the MFG. is more interested in selling completed motors than parts. They build to order ( in lots of 100 motors) and shut down the factory (send everyone home) until another order for 100 motors comes in. I suggest all who consider this motor (my self included) address the after the sale support prior to purchasing the motor. If the motor is not supported with spare parts its hardly a "deal". judd stewart 619.552.5581 judd_stewart@cpqm.saic.com From: "Todd A. Miller" Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 13:18:41 -0400 Subject: Re: COZY: Franklin Engines On May 17, 9:23am, Judd Stewart wrote: > Subject: COZY: Franklin Engines ...> I suggest all who consider this motor (my self included) address the after > the sale support prior to purchasing the motor. If the motor is not supported > with spare parts its hardly a "deal". I have to agree! We, collectively, should attempt to use the power-in-numbers principle provided by the size of this group to extract some guarantees before turning over any $$$....The Franklin could become homebuilt's next Bede organization. Hopefully no one has forgotten that display of how not to support the homebuilding movement. Regards, -- ********************************************************************** Todd A. Miller Internet : tmiller@med.osd.mil EDS-D/SIDDOMS Phone : (703) 845-3839 5113 Leesburg Pike Fax : (703) 845-3899 Skyline 4 Suite 800 Falls Church, VA 22041-3201 ********************************************************************** Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:08:35 -0700 (MST) From: ej89177@goodnet.com (Ed Neilander) Subject: COZY: FRANKLIN COZY UPDATE Thought i should post everyone on the progress of the franklin conversion on NATS airplane as i have been helping him the last two months or so. The first test flight was on saturday June 8, looks to be a success so far with very few problems. some cowling modifications seem to be neccessary as the cht's were quite unbalanced and some were showing too much heat but Nat already seems to be on top of this. Having helped on most of the installation on this project i can tell you that Nat has done a excellent job of figuring out the following. The "mount" design is such that the upper mount bolts can be removed and the complete engine assembly pivots down allowing access to the back of the case as this is where the accessories are. The exhaust, wich is a work of art in that it is of the "tuned style", oil cooler placement, mag setup, as well as the srarter, alternator, and throttle body set up and the prop hub. If the project is a success, we will all have some great support products to help us when we get to the point of making power plant decisions. Nat has done a very thorough design process on this whole project and this should help us all in having more options to work with and not have to be complete test pilots and engineers for options uther than the lycoming route. The initall flight showed a more mellow sound than the lycoming,and looks to be very powerfull based on the takeoff distance used. Nat was enthused with the smooth running and initiall numbers he saw but said he was flying very conservative with the engine being brand new and not yet broken in. I will keep everyone up to date over the next few weeks as everything comes together. ED Neilander Date: 2 Jul 1996 10:22:07 -0700 From: "Judd Stewart" Subject: COZY: Franklin Info People, I was talking to a friend of mine (Stenson owner) who recently went to a west coast Stenson fly-in. The Franklin motor was a major topic. I can't verify the following but I think it is worth passing along. (Note: some of the following was gathered by a A&P that was at the factory for training.) 1) The two distributors are not exclusive. PLZ has not and will not enter into exclusive agreements. 2) The same factory that builds this motor builds the hot-sections for Garret, Aero-jet. (I had visions of peasants working in a dungeon, apparently the factory is pretty substantial) 3) The parts shortages I previously posted about is a partial FAA problem (Lycoming and Continental are pressuring the FAA to try to keep them out of the market). PLZ is interested in selling parts but not retail, someone needs to become a stocking distributor. 4) PLZ has installed 220HP motors on a Senaca and have flow for 3000 hours, 8 hours a day 7 days a week. The motor is performing way above expectations. They have increased the TBO to 1700 hours (I don't know how to confirm this, I would assume the Mfg. would need to updated the certification with the FAA) They are looking for a TBO of 2000. In the certification process the mfg. has to demonstrate a 2 x the TBO, there shooting for 4000 hours on the Senaca.. 5) Continental (of airplane motor fame) arrived to discuss a buyout. The president of PLZ responded with a NO. PLZ is operating in a vacuum, they are unaware of the market possibilities for there product (I wonder about this). The Stenson group is considering putting together a video to make there case (remember they are having a hell of a time getting parts for there 1XX hp motors) They will include the homebuilt connection. I'll post additional info, gossip, rumors etc. as I get them. judd_stewart@cpqm.saic.com Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 11:22:36 -0700 From: Michael Antares Subject: COZY: Franklin follow-up Thanks Judd for your info. To add to the excitement somewhat, the Franklin issue is anything but dead. There is at this time an ongoing effort with PZL Franklin (note that it is PZL, not PLZ) in Poland to secure a price for OEM engines for use in our plane exclusively. At the same time we have no desire to create any hard feelings with Atlas who have been extremely helpful to Nat during his Franklin implementation process so we are proceeding with great care to end up with a deal that is win-win for everyone. At this time Nat is having difficulty with cooling and so he is not willing to bless the Franklin installation until these issues are resolved. At the moment he gives his blessing we will move ahead as strongly and as quickly as possible. Just to get a preliminary feel, how many in this group are in a position to purchase a Franklin engine at the time of Nat's go-ahead if the price was under $10K (without accessories)? Also please note that although Nat is aware of our efforts, he is not a participant in them, again so as not to create hard feelings with Atlas. Michael 6077 Old Redwood Highway Penngrove, CA 94951 707.664.1171 Systems engineering hardware/software From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Franklin follow-up (fwd) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 14:37:02 EDT Michael Antares writes: >Just to get a preliminary feel, how many in this group are in a position to >purchase a Franklin engine at the time of Nat's go-ahead if the price was >under $10K (without accessories)? Well, since it looks like the price from ATLAS is $11,800 stripped, and the final price to outfit the engine (sans prop and mount) is around $16,000, it looks to me as though you are talking about a ~$2000 discount for a final price of ~$14,000. Given the price of new (or used) O-360's, this certainly is starting to look like a VERY attractive deal, especially if the parts situation clears up. Would this offer be contingent on ordering within a particular time period (like a sale) or would the price be ongoing? That said, given the Subaru conversions that exist (and will exist a couple of years from now) I would seriously consider one of them, as well, so the ~$14,000 would be no guarantee of a Franklin purchase. Now, if the OUTFITTED price was around ~$10,000, I think you'd guarantee my order. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: 2 Jul 1996 12:41:36 -0700 From: "Judd Stewart" Subject: COZY: Franklin follow-up Michael Antares writes: >Just to get a preliminary feel, how many in this group are in a position to >purchase a Franklin engine at the time of Nat's go-ahead if the price was >under $10K (without accessories)? If the two US distributors are not exclusive, we as a group should inquire about buying motors direct. We should not dismiss the aggregate buying power of this mailing list. If we pool are resource we could buy materials very reasonably. judd_stewart@cpqm.saic.com Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 15:00:06 -0800 From: Eric_Westland@msvl.wednet.edu (Eric Westland) Organization: Marysville School Dist. Subject: Re: COZY: Franklin follow-up > Just to get a preliminary feel, how many in this group are in a position > to purchase a Franklin engine at the time of Nat's go-ahead if the price > was under $10K (without accessories)? Sign me up. I am ready to buy one yesterday, I'm just waiting for Nat to finish up. For those of you thinking that you are far from doing this, I could only tell you that I wish I had purchased an O-360 4 years ago when I started. At that time, reliable used ones could be found for a fair price. Since then, the demand for good used engines have driven the price within a few thousand of a new one. I am sure that once the Franklin becomes more widely known, PZL will charge more and if the price was to go down, it would be the first airplane related item to go down in price since I started! So think about acting now. It could be the best move you made since you bought Microsoft at $6! I would hope we could use the buying power of several to get a great price on the engines, accessories, mounts, etc.. Thanks to Michael for his efforts. -eric -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Sent via ExpressNet/SMTP(tm), Internet Gateway of the Gods! ExpressNet/SMTP (c)1994-95 Delphic Software, Inc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 09:29:24 -0700 From: Michael Antares Subject: COZY: Further Franklin... My post has raised some questions (not surprising!) so I'll try and provide a little more info. Who is "we"? At the moment "we" is myself and an intermediary who acts as a go-between between American and Polish companies. What's in it for me? The answer is that I desire to get a good aircraft engine at a reasonable price and since I have done some importing in the past I thought I would spend some time investigating what it would take to get engines direct from Franklin (it has been a very, very interesting exercise). It takes the same effort to import one as to import many so I have envisioned providing Franklin engines to others in our group. I would like to be compensated for my effort but I'm not interested in making a profit per se. Can anyone buy an engine from PZL Franklin? Sure; they will quote you an engine for $11,800 FOB Poland, payment in advance--a great deal--thanks but no thanks. Who's Atlas? For those of you not familiar, Atlas is one of the two U.S. Franklin engine distributors, one on the East coast and one on the west. Nat purchased his engine from Atlas and has received much assistance from them including accessories and replacement parts. Obviously, he doesn't want to stab Atlas in the back by dumping them after all their help. Neither do I. So why not work a deal with Atlas? Perhaps that may be the way to go but the reason I'm investigating a separate route is that Atlas undoubtably is in it for profit and I'm much more inclined to have a specific Cozy-limited cooperative which is not profit driven. But I think there is a win-win solution for everyone, including Atlas and that's my ultimate objective. In any case the bottom line at this moment is that Nat is not through flight testing the Franklin and is not willing to bless it as an alternative yet. Until he is everything is on hold. From my side we are at the beginning stages of a negotiation with PZL. It has taken over 6 months to get this far. I don't have a firm price from them so I don't know at this time whether it will actually be possible to offer an engine for under $10,000 but it won't happen for sure unless I can buy a reasonable quantity (I'm proposing 10 at a time) from Franklin. That will mean interested buyers will need to put the purchase price into an escrow account because PZL Franklin will demand a Letter Of Credit guaranteeing payment. But that is only a portion of the myriad of details that need to be worked out. So don't get too excited yet but know that Nat has put a huge amount of time and effort into the Franklin installation and I have put far less but still subtantial effort into setting up this arrangement with PZL Franklin and intend to push it through to a conclusion. I'll keep y'all posted! Michael 6077 Old Redwood Highway Penngrove CA 94951 707.664.1171 Cozy#413 Finished through chap 14 except chap 13. Currently on 16 and 24. Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 23:04:43 -0400 (edt) From: Michael Triffon Subject: COZY: Windev and voice conference Does anybody know what happened to the www.windev.com site ? I got on about 10 days ago and it seems to have gone down as I keep getting "URL not found". I would also like to know the groups thoughts on Suber! Power, subaru engine conversions. Using the ej33 should give around 250 HP at lighter weight. Has anyone put one on one of the teh Rutan variants. If not why ? Date: 09 Jul 96 03:00:33 EDT From: INFINITY Aerospace <72124.347@compuserve.com> Subject: COZY: Subaru Power >Mike Triffon writes (Hi Mike):< >I would also like to know the groups thoughts on Suber! Power, subaru engine conversions. Using the ej33 should give around 250 HP at lighter weight. Has anyone put one on one of the teh Rutan variants. If not why ?< Several Long-EZ and Vari-EZE aircraft are flying with Subaru's. Velocity tried one, but had trouble with the automotive electronic ignition and an oil seal around the planetary. The planetary design was changed, but I don't know what happened with the electronic ignition problem, or what happened to the project. Phil Johnson is putting a stock 3.3 ltr. Subaru on his Cozy MK-IV-RG. He puts out a technical paper on this engine and has a very detailed video of his installation you can get from him. According to an article in US Aviator, the article stated that more Subaru engines have flown than volkswagon engines. I don't know how many that is, or if this fact is that significant. Does someone out there know the comparison numbers? The Subaru engine was originally designed for aircraft use in the late '70's and early '80's, but the bottom fell out of GA. According to auto mechanics, Subaru engines typically will run 200,000 to 300,000 miles with no problems. Rumor had it at Oshkosh '95 that Subaru was coming out with an aircraft engine. Toyota's aircraft and engine is flying now, going for certification (which might be completed by now). We have an intercooled, turbo-charged, blue printed and balanced custom 3.3 ltr. (393 lb. full up) Subaru racing engine made up for us by Formula Power. It has well over 150 hours of full power testing on a dyno at full loads. They have had it as high as 700 HP momentarily. We were going to use it at 400 HP, but have dropped it to 350 HP for the 2.17:1 Ross Plantetary was rated for 400 to 450 HP and we wanted to have a little larger safety margin. The engine was putting out 330 HP @ 5000 RPM, and 380 HP @ 5600 RPM before the intercooler was put on. It's doing even better (more HP) with the intercooler, and at a lower RPM. It's a really nice engine. We also have a 250 HP, 18" diameter, full up rotary engine sitting in the shop made by Racing Beat for BEC - it's a very small package. We have been told Rotary powered Grand Prix race cars typically will run 5 races without an engine change, compared with other race cars changing the engine out every race. HTH. Infinity's Forever, JD INFINITY Aerospace P. O. Box 12275 El Cajon, CA 92022 (619) 448-5103 PH & FAX 72124.347@compuserve.com Home Page http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 09:43 EST From: Ermilo Coello <0006931946@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: COZY: Subaru Power Only one question: Which are the prices difference between Subaru, Lyc, and Franklin engines and mayor advantage each one? Regards Ermilo Coello From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Subaru Engines Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 8:41:16 EDT Michael Triffon wrote: >I would also like to know the groups thoughts on Suber! Power, subaru engine >conversions. Using the ej33 should give around 250 HP at lighter weight. >Has anyone put one on one of the teh Rutan variants. If not why ? As Jim Newman wrote, Phil Johnson is putting one of these in his plane. Nigel Field has a EA-81 in his V.E. For those of you who LOVE getting email, there's a new mailing list for subaru conversions that Kevin Hester (Dragonfly mailing list fame) has set up. To subscribe, send a mail message to: airsoob-request@interstice.com with the line: subscribe in the BODY of the message (not the subject). Beware, though, if you think there's a lot of traffic on the COZY mailing list, you haven't seen ANYTHING yet. I've been averaging over 10-15 messages/day on the subaru list, and I'm probably going to unsubscribe until I'm a lot closer to picking an engine. Interesting discussions, though, and Reiner Hoffman (Stratus Subaru conversions) is a member. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 09:57:03 -0400 From: Phillip.Johnson@Lockheed.on.ca (Phillip Johnson) Subject: COZY: Subaru EG33 Michael Triffon writes: > I would also like to know the groups thoughts on Suber! Power, > subaru engine conversions. Using the ej33 should give around 250 > HP at lighter weight. Has anyone put one on one of the teh Rutan > variants. If not why ? & JD Newman writes: > Phil Johnson is putting a stock 3.3 ltr. Subaru on his Cozy > MK-IV-RG. He puts out a technical paper on this engine and has a > very detailed video of his installation you can get from him. Boy Michael, you really know how to wave a red flag at a bull writing such heresy to this group. Be ready for the heat! There are a number of builders within this group who are installing the Subaru SVX (EG33) engine in their Cozy MK IV's. I was probably one of the first to find an engine back in early summer 1992 not long after the engine made its debut. Once the word got out that I had this engine my phone never stopped ringing with calls coming in from as far away a Australia and New Zealand. In response to the many and varied questions, I made a Video tape about the engine. The initial version of the tape ran for about an hour and I simply measured all of the components and weighed them simply because everybody had different ideas when it came to the question of how much does an engine weigh. If for example I took the basic engine weight less manifolds and ancillaries it weighed 285 lbs. Not bad for an engine rated at 230 hp in the car with a back pressure ridden exhaust system. However life is never that good, and by the time you add all the injectors and the various manifolds the weight grew rapidly to be more than the Lycoming 0-360. The video indicated the component weight so a true assessment could be made. Likewise the physical dimensions were measured for the same reason. Version 2 came out about a year later and in this version the engine had been mounted. The exhaust system had been built and explained. There have been a couple of further additions showing the engine in various stages of development and the tape reached a length of about two and a half hours. One of the builders in this group asked me if I could add some footage showing my cozy project in addition to the engine work so I added about another hour to the tape. All in all the tape runs for about four hours. (I'm striving to produce a monologue longer than Gone with the wind :-) ). Now amongst the flames that I'm going to receive about this topic a number of you will ask me for a copy of the tape. I have been selling the tape at $10 US funds inc. S&H which is at cost price and I do it for sport aviation. Trust me, I am not making anything on this deal and they are a pain in the butt to make. Well back to the original subject, the engine. Mine weighs 390 lbs complete with the following Basic engine All induction manifolds Throttle body Injectors and fuel lines Starter Alternator All rubber belts Exhaust Ross PRSU 1.85:1 Full of OIL All cooling plumbing but excluding radiator and coolant Engine mounting frame and rubbers All attachment nuts and bolts and wiring. Basically it's the firewall backwards installation less coolant, radiator and propeller. Note: prop extension is not required since the engine/PSRU combination is 36 inches which is identical to that of the 0-360 with extension. The estimated power is 230 to 260 hp. Notice that I say estimated since the engine is yet to be proven. One thing is for sure, you can expect to add a year to your building programme if you take the alternative engine route. Nat does not approve this conversion, and last year at Oshkosh, at the internet group meeting, Nat became quite heated about this topic along with a few other topics. Don't expect builder support from him in this area. Phillip Johnson Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:44:00 -0400 From: Phillip.Johnson@Lockheed.on.ca (Phillip Johnson) Subject: Re: COZY: Subaru Power Ermilo Coello writes: > Which are the prices difference between Subaru, Lyc, and Franklin > engines and mayor advantage each one? I bought my EG33 Subaru engine for $5000 Canadian dollars. With an exchange rate of 1.4:1 that makes it $3500 US dollars. The engine had 3000 miles on it and included all sensors and wiring necessary for operation. The Ross PSRU cost $3600 US dollars for the 1.85:1 ratio fitted with six planets. The 2.17:1 comes in at about $2800. So at this cursory level the Subaru costs about $7000 US dollars. Now to this you will add $300 for a good radiator and $150 for a light weight alternator. The rest is common to all engine types, ie mounts exhausts etc. The real benefit comes in when it comes to maintenance time, although Subaru prices are expensive by automotive prices they are at throw away prices by aviation standards. The whole short block is about $2500 new from the factory. Unfortunately Subaru will not sell new engines without a chassis number. Phillip Johnson From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Cozy Franklin (fwd) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 11:28:03 EDT People; I received this from Nigel Field. --- >Mark, snatched this off the US aviator BB re arlington flyin. May be of >interest to the group. >Nat Puffer's Cozy Mk IV is now flying around the USA with exceptional >smoothness thanks to the six-cylinder charms of a 220 HP Franklin engine. >While he had a few teething problems to deal with in this installation, >a solid 20 hours have allowed this engine to smooth out, get broken in, >cool down some head temps and start to strut it's stuff. I flew the >Franklin powered Cozy today and was very impressed with the lack of >vibration, linear throttle response, and extra power. >Nat's Cozy is apparently showing a top speed of some 230 mph, a solid >1500 fpm climb rate (91 degrees, 500 pound payload), and a solid 150 rpm >increase over the Lycoming it replaced, still using the same prop. There >is still some fine tuning yet to accomplish but suffice it to say that >nat's getting some positive data from this conversion and the Franklin >(aggressively priced these days, we might add) could turn out to be THE >way to go. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Mon, 15 Jul 96 10:00:09 -0800 From: Eric_Westland@msvl.wednet.edu (Eric Westland) Organization: Marysville School Dist. Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy Franklin (fwd) > >Nat's Cozy is apparently showing a top speed of some 230 MPH, a solid > >1500 fpm climb rate (91 degrees, 500 pound payload), and a solid 150 > RPM >increase over the Lycoming it replaced, still using the same prop. > There >is still some fine tuning yet to accomplish but suffice it to > say that >Nat's getting some positive data from this conversion and the > Franklin >(aggressively priced these days, we might add) could turn out > to be THE >way to go. Well, not exactly. I was not in the plane with Nat and Jim Campbell, but Nat did take me up last Monday after they arrived in Everett to help him chase down some temperatures. Nat felt the Franklin had broken in on their way up here as he saw the temperatures drop to the high side of normal. However, with limited testing done so far, he still feels more work needs to be done on the cooling and that he is still not getting much more power than he was getting with the O-360. What I saw on our flight was a top speed of 180 KIAS at 10,000 feet. Nat still wants to add ram air to the intake and is not ready to say it is a success. Shirley called us from Miles City, Montana on Sunday night to tell us they had made it that far east for the day, so those of you going to OSH will be able to talk with Nat himself to see the engine and hear it's status. If it had been as Jim Campbell wrote, I think Nat would have been happy to share those numbers with people at Arlington as there was constant interest in the Franklin engine. I listened to many people question him about this at Arlington hoping for a "go-ahead" signal, but to Nat's credit, he told them just what he knew so far and that is that it is going to take more time and work before he decided to recommend it. He did take off the top cowling so people could see inside of it and it all fits nicely. Having said all that, I was excited seeing it all as it also seemed much smoother to me, had a short prop extension and scooted along pretty good. I would think with more time, this will be as good an option as the Lycoming. -eric -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Sent via ExpressNet/SMTP(tm), Internet Gateway of the Gods! ExpressNet/SMTP (c)1994-95 Delphic Software, Inc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 22:52:05 -0400 From: Jim Hocut Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy Franklin (fwd) >> >Nat's Cozy is apparently showing a top speed of some 230 MPH, a solid >> >1500 fpm climb rate (91 degrees, 500 pound payload), and a solid 150 >> RPM >increase over the Lycoming it replaced, still using the same prop. >> There >is still some fine tuning yet to accomplish but suffice it to >> say that >Nat's getting some positive data from this conversion and the >> Franklin >(aggressively priced these days, we might add) could turn out >> to be THE >way to go. > > > > >Well, not exactly. ...... > >What I saw on our flight was a top speed of 180 KIAS at 10,000 feet. ........ OK, forgive me for picking nits, BUT - (you didn't state the temperature so I'm making a small assumption here of standard temperature, which is probably conservative given that it's summer) 180 knots indicated at 10,000 ft, according to my trusty E6B is about 209 knots true, which is 240 mph. Jim Hocut jhocut@mindspring.com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 08:22:49 From: JRaerocad@gnn.com (Jeff Russell) Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy Franklin (fwd) Jim Hocut rewrote: >Nat's Cozy is apparently showing a top speed of some 230 MPH, >a solid 1500 fpm climb rate (91 degrees, 500 pound payload), and a >solid 150 RPM >increase over the Lycoming it replaced, still using the >same prop. >There is still some fine tuning yet to accomplish but suffice >it to say that >Nat's getting some positive data from this conversion >and the Franklin (aggressively priced these days, we might add) could >turn out to be THE way to go. >Well, not exactly. ...... > >What I saw on our flight was a top speed of 180 KIAS at 10,000 feet. ........ >OK, forgive me for picking nits, BUT - (you didn't state the >temperature so I'm making a small assumption here of standard >temperature, which is probably conservative given that it's summer) >180 knots indicated at 10,000 ft, according to my trusty E6B is about >209 knots true, which is 240 mph. WE saw a top speed of 180 KIAS at 10,000. Were did you read this??? The ASI The GPS or loran If it was the GPS, is that not true airspeed??? I think most people do not understand this. AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy Franklin (fwd) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 9:02:31 EDT Jeff Russell wrote: >WE saw a top speed of 180 KIAS at 10,000. > >Were did you read this??? >The ASI The ASI (air speed indicator) is the __only__ place to read IAS (indicated air speed). >The GPS or loran This cannot give you IAS - only ground speed. You would have to make a number of runs in opposite directions (both into and with the wind, after figuring out the wind direction, and then averaging them) in order to get a TAS (true air speed) indication from the GPS or Loran. This still wouldn't be IAS. >If it was the GPS, is that not true airspeed??? No, see above. That's GS (ground speed). Determined by the TAS and the wind VECTOR. >I think most people do not understand this. Ummm, apparently not :-). So, the question for Eric is, did you read the 180 Kts as IAS, TAS, or GS? -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 15:48:05 est From: "Larry Schuler" Subject: COZY: Re:Engines Jeff Russell wrote Subject: COZY: Soob I have noticed a slight certified VS conversion RPM battale raging here and would like an opinion. In the 3rd edition of Aerocrafters' bokk, Bruce Arrigoni states that the piston speed of short stroke Subaru is the same as that of a long stroke Lycont running at 2500 RPM. What does this mean ? Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 18:41:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Roy Grossinger Subject: Re: COZY: Re:Engines > Jeff Russell and Larry Schuller were discussing high RPMs, TBO an dhorse > power. > > Jeff noted: You tell me what you think. Why do Lycombing rate max RPM at > 2700. > TBO it at 2000 hours because of low running RPM to produce Horses. > > I'm far from an expert but I did read an article in Kit Planes a few years > back (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!). > > As I remember, there are two ways to increase the horse power: > - You keep building bigger and bigger engines. The larger the cylinder, the > more the horse power apparently. > - You increase the RPMs. You run the engine fast and then gear it down to > increase the horsepower at the output. > > I would guess (underline guess) that the Lycomings are a trade off between > larger cylinder sizes (bad) and lower RPMs (good) designed to maximize TBO > while producing a good amount of horse power. > > Ok, so maybe I'm all wet -- I'm already regretting writting on a subject that > I know little about -- never stopped me before though! > Having dabbled with many different type of engines in my short time you find that the person who designed the darn thing designed it for a specific application. This application happens at time to work fine in other applications, sometimes NOT. An automotive engine in most high performance cars are designed, note your torque curve, to produce full power at about 10 - 20% of max RPM. That is why an auto or manual car is downshifted to pass. Then it is shifted into a high gear to cruise. Lower RPM's lower torque, less fuel flow. Most cars engines are not design to provide full power at a high RPM for very long, all I have to do is look at all the cars towing stuff around our mountains to see that. Yeah I know it also has to do with cooling. Also you have to take into consideration the size and stroke length of each piston. The reason an Indy car is at such a high RPM is the pistons are rather small, less inertia to overcome during each stroke, therefore less stress and very important less friction on the bearings, so you can increase the RPM's. You can also accelerate the darn things quickly because A=Fm, less mass same force, higher acceleration. Also note the small pistons on a motorcycle. My old 4 banger, has a lower max RPM then my V-6 because they had a larger diameter. Now take a marine diesel, they run fine at 500 - 1200 RPM and were designed to produce full power at these low RPM's. They also have a huge piston to slam up and down. And since they run for long periods there is less friction on the parts since they travel fewer times up and down. This is why you can get 160 HP out of a Lycoming at 2250 RPM's. Big pistons at a slow constant speed, giving the benefit of less wear, and an optimum prop speed. Do what you want with this message, but remember, for each engine design, there were reasons they made them the way they are. By the way, if someone else has a manual for an O-320 mind counting the parts for the basic engine, no accessories. Do the same with a V-6 and you will be surprised. Statistics shows us the probability of failure increases as the parts which can fail increase. KIS! ROY Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 20:00:03 -0800 From: Eric_Westland@msvl.wednet.edu (Eric Westland) Organization: Marysville School Dist. Subject: Re(2): COZY: Cozy Franklin (fwd) > So, the question for Eric is, did you read the 180 Kts as IAS, TAS, or > GS? Sorry for the confusion, what I reported was knots indicated by the airspeed indicator. We did not take an OAT reading as we were mostly focusing on what was going on inside the cowling, not outside of it. I have do not remember what the ground temperature may have been that day other than it was moderate (for Seattle). Of course, without the temps, the true airspeed would just be speculative. Since we were just flying locally and not interested in ground speed, the GPS was off. When I posted my observations, I was just trying to pass on some additional info to those of us that are interested in the Franklin for our birds. I was not trying to be scientific (as if I could :-)). In any event, the jury is still out as far as Nat is concerned until he has some more time on the engine and can run it through some more meaningful tests. As for the ride itself, it was fantastic. These are great flying machines! Later, Eric -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Sent via ExpressNet/SMTP(tm), Internet Gateway of the Gods! ExpressNet/SMTP (c)1994-95 Delphic Software, Inc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 00:04:50 -0700 From: Paul Comte Subject: Re: COZY:RE:Engines Concerning the ongoing discussion on HP and RPM... There is no free lunch! Two factors are the foundation of engine design. The first is to design with maintaining a proper stoichiometric blend of air and fuel. This blend is a very predictable number, of course the environment the engine will run is absolutely variable! Carbs, manifolds, fuel injection, turbo and turbosuperchargers are designed to make up for the variations in environment. The second factor is often termed "swept area" or displacement. It takes the same amount of properly mixed fuel and air to generate 180HP regardless if you have 200 or 400 cubic inches. You need to sweep until you meet the desired HP output. More sweeping means higher RPM or larger displacement. Reciprocating mass, balance shafts and valve train mass all contribute to the problems of designing an efficient small displacement engine. These problems have been with engine design since before internal combustion. (see note below) I really think one of the reasons there is not much change in certified aircraft engines is that to be reliable most designs are kept simple. There just isn't that much you can do with a valve, piston, connecting rod or crankshaft. With the new plastics and ceramics one could reduce the overall weight and that of the reciprocating mass. While this might lead to a significant weight savings and HP output may go up, you are not likely to double the output for the same displacement. Paul pcomte@tcccom.net PS I recently made a trip to the National Railroad Museum in Green Bay WI. You see a lot of wonderful equipment. Most of it, by the way, was originally designed on paper with human calculators, later slide rules. Fantastic. They have an example of the Big Boy, (4.8.8.4) the peak of power design in locomotives. Over 130 feet long and weighing 1.1 Million pounds this big dude can crank out 6000HP. Six thousand horsepower, one million one hundred thousand pounds in weight. It is really two engines under one gigantic boiler. The front engine has a plate on top of it so the boiler can slide back and forth in corners otherwise it would straighten out the curves in the track!. If you want a neat diversion from Oshkosh you might be interested. Just a few miles from Ashwab. Field, the museum is located between GB and DePere, right on the Fox river. paul From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Cert. vs. Auto Engines Date: Wed, 17 Jul 96 9:40:43 EDT Larry Schuler writes: >Am I mistaken that if the engine is geard down, the torque increases >per the gear ratio, but the total HP stays the same? Correct. RPM goes down, Torque goes up, HP (which is the product of RPM and Torque) stays constant (minus losses in the gear box - usually around 5%). Michael Triffon asks: >.......the piston speed of short stroke Subaru is the same as >that of a long stroke Lycont running at 2500 RPM. What does this mean ? As the piston moves up and down, it accelerates from zero velocity at the top and bottom of the stroke to a maximum velocity somewhere near the middle of the stroke (not quite at 90 degrees from TDC or BDC, since the connecting rod is not infinitely long). The stresses on the crankshaft and the connecting rods are related to the piston speed and the mass of the piston and con-rod. In the comparison you mention, the combination of RPM, con-rod length, and stroke lead to similar piston speeds in these two engines. This doesn't _necessarily_ mean much, but if you examine a lot of engines you'll find that most of them operate within a fairly small maximum piston speed range (due to stress limitations of materials). In this case it _may_ be indicative that stresses in those engines are approximately the same, but isn't necessarily so. Roy Grossinger writes (with some rearranging): >An automotive engine in most high performance cars are designed, note >your torque curve, to produce full power at about 10 - 20% of max RPM. Don't think that's true - look at the torque curves in "Road and Track" or one of the equivalent magazines - you'll see that torque peaks are in the 2500 - 4000 RPM range, whereas max RPM is usually in the 5000-6000 range. This is determined by the cam timing, induction system tuning, exhaust tuning, etc. and can be changed somewhat for an individual engine. Nit-picking, but 50% would have been a better estimate. >.... the person who designed the darn thing designed it for a >specific application. This application happens at time to work fine in >other applications, sometimes NOT. And this is the crux of the Auto vs Certified engine debate. People attempt to use Auto engines for one main reason. Certified engines cost a RIDICULOUS amount of money! A new, balanced and blueprinted Ford or Chevy V6 or Subaru engine in the 200 HP range can be had for what, $8000? (and I'm being conservative here, I think - you can get the engine for around $2K - $3K). A new O-360 will run you ~!$18,000 if you buy it through Nat or Vans (RV guy). Now, I don't know about you people, but $10K is a lot of dough to me, and I consider myself well off. This cost differential causes people to try to use engines for other than their original intended use. There are many people who claim that by using racing parts (intended for very high stresses) and then de-rating the engines, they can get reasonable lifetimes - I don't think this has been proven yet, but the number of auto conversions is rising all the time, and I'd guess that within 5 -10 years there will be enough data to compare failure rates and TBO's. There's no question, however, that IF auto conversions can be made reliable, they will be INCREDIBLY cost effective, given the lower acquisitiona and rebuild costs (not to mention using auto gas). As far as this discussion goes on this forum, I don't think we're going to solve this dilemma :-). If you really want to see people jump all over each other about auto engines (using purely anecdotal evidence - no statistical epidemiological data) read the newsgroup "rec.aviation.homebuilt" - about 1/2 of all postings are on this subject. If you specifically want information about using Subaru engines, join the subaru mailing list - there are many people there either already using Subarus in aircraft, or building engines to use in their planes. Certainly we can discuss this here, but I'd just as soon that a COZY forum not turn into an Auto Engine forum unless the info has something specific to do with COZY's (or at least composite canards) :-). Something like "hey Phillip or Nigel, how do you know when your Subaru engine is on - it's so dang quiet!" :-). -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Re: EJ22 power Date: Wed, 17 Jul 96 16:53:42 EDT People; Of course, right after saying lets not discuss auto conversions ad-infinitum, blah, blah, blah, I see something that might be really useful to COZY builders :-). Hope Nigel Field and Reiner Hoffman don't mind my reposting this from the subaru mailing list. Sport aviation had a picture of Stratus's EJ-22 conversion and said it put out 170 HP - apparently US Aviator had an article which said 185 HP. So..... Nigel Field wrote: >>........... re the EJ22. I >>was amazed to see 185 HP and possibly more to come, Reiner is this correct? Reiner Hoffman (Stratus) wrote: >yes, i was amazed myself. i double checked all the gages etc. because i just >could not believe it myself. did it three times to convince me. >so far i still dont have the cam i realy want, but soon. then up to 200hp >will be possible, but you need to rev to 6400. >but you have to see my induction system. its very efficient. one 44mm hole >per cylinder. the induction end makes a lot of difference on the ej22. >my prototype was only 145hp. Given that Reiner sells his 100 HP EA-81 conversion for ~$7K, I bet we're looking at some VERY competitive prices on the EJ-22 (Legacy) conversion. This power range is just right for a MKIV. Those of you going to OSHKOSH - please check out Stratus, talk to Reiner (as well as Formula Power and the other Subaru guys) and report back to us on any new developments and prices. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:37:28 -0700 From: fieldn@sos.pwgsc.gc.ca (Nigel Field) Subject: COZY: Subaru Power I know Marc, keep the debate out of here and I couldn't agree more, but I think this needs to be raised. As mentioned by Marc already it would appear that the EJ22 might be a good candidate for the MK IV. In the past I had thought that it was a bit shy on power at about 150 HP as I never believed the ads for higher values, but given Reiner Hoffmans data and his credibility, it seems that 180 to 185 HP is quite achievable. I think that this now makes it a serious contender. As I have two of these engines I can attest to their excellent design and quality of manufacture, they are superb pieces of engineering. Based on my 3 years experience with the similar but smaller EA-81, I think reliability and longevity (TBO) will be acceptable. I have 185 flight hours on my EA-81 without a trace of problems with the engine itself. I measured the cylinder wear for the third time last week and cannot detect any at all, the cross hatch I put in on re-build is still clearly visible. The cam lift has not changed and although I cant get at the main bearings without complete dis-assembly, the oil Aeroshell 15-50 stays clean at 25 hours indicating low wear and consumption is essentially zero, so it is showing all the signs of going for a good long time, probably at least 1000 Hrs. The weight on my EJ22 for my Cozy III comes out at 265 for everything except the mount itself and it seems to meets all of the other requirements. If mounted aft a bit from the 0-360 it would make a very nice slick package with good aerodynamics and lower aircraft weight. The battery might need to go in the nose for CG but havent worked that yet on the spread sheet. The liquid cooling drag would be lower, I have proved that with my VE, and with the right PSRU ( I like the Ross) and prop combo (big dia) a much better integrated system would result. Given its quality and 5 bearings vice 3, the OHC design and the fact that many are now flying without problems it appears to be an acceptable, lighter and much more cost effective alternative to 60 years of tradition unimpeded by progress. My thoughts, Nigel Field From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Subaru Power (fwd) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 96 13:47:17 EDT Nigel Field wrote: >....... EJ22 might be a good candidate for the MK IV. In the past I had >thought that it was a bit shy on power at about 150 HP as I never believed >the ads for higher values, but given Reiner Hoffmans data and his >credibility, it seems that 180 to 185 HP is quite achievable. Last night I went back and found the literature from Formula Power. They have a EJ-22 conversion which they also claim gets 185 HP. Their power curve was essentially flat in the operating range, going from 170 HP at 4500 RPM to 186 HP at 5750 RPM, and then dropping off back to 175 HP or so at 6000 RPM. Just another data point. FP (a year and a half ago) was charging about $10.5K for the engine without a PSRU (Prop Speed Reduction Unit [or gear box :-)] ) but with ALL other accessories. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 21:55:35 -0400 From: M500K@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: Cert. vs. Auto Engines Marc writes: >Chevy ,V-6 or Subaru for $8000, balanced, blueprinted etc. I have an old price list from Formula Power (Subaru), and when you talk full-up BP & Bal. (not to be confused with them selling you a short block, heads, manif. etc. for you to assemble) the price was very high. When you throw in the $2000+ for Airflow Perf. fuel inj., and $3000+ for the requisite Ross re-drive, you are definitely barking up the Lycoming tree. If one buys a professionally built auto conversion (new stuff, please don't fall for the junkyard engine, convert it yourself in the garage dream) there is very little room to save vs. new cert. airplane engine. Pep Boys for the first major overhaul is probably the first opportunity to save real dollars. Then again, I should be so lucky to live long enough to put 1500+hrs. on my Cozy/Lyc. to even need an overhaul. I live in Dallas, where I have two pers. friends running rotary's with Ross re-drives. One in a Velocity, one in a Long-Eze. Those re-drives have been back and forth to Ross's shop for bad seals, bearings new bell housings etc. enough times to get their own frequent flyer acct. The Long-Eze owner barely pulled off an emergency landing due to a water leak last fall, the eng. was a total loss. (obviously not related to re-drive, just one more thing to worry about) Anyone caring to talk to either of these guys, let me know, I'd have to ask, but both would probably be happy to relate their experiences. Jim Marshall From: Sid & Mari Lloyd Subject: COZY: Arlington Cozy Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 07:21:49 -0500 I saw the Franklin installation at Arlington and it looked very nice. There was a small additional bump on the rear left cowl to allow for clearance for that spark plug. Kudos to Nat for continuing development of the IV! I also talked to Jim Campbell who had flown it. He said that getting info from Nat about the performance was like pulling teeth. Again, kudos to Nat for not giving out information that he hasn't thoroughly tested. In today's kitplane market Nat's approach to the market should be emulated by startups. Sid Date: 20 Jul 96 14:46:00 EDT From: INFINITY Aerospace <72124.347@compuserve.com> Subject: COZY: Bumps >Sid Lloyd wrote:< >I saw the Franklin installation at Arlington and it looked very nice. There was a small additional bump on the rear left cowl to allow for clearance for that spark plug.< Would a 90 degree spark plug fitting, which would lower the overall profile of the spark plug, be enough to get rid of the need for a small bump on the rear left cowl? HTH. Infinity's Forever, JD INFINITY Aerospace P. O. Box 12275 El Cajon, CA 92022 (619) 448-5103 PH & FAX 72124.347@compuserve.com Home Page http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace From: Paul.Krasa-1@pp.ksc.nasa.gov (Krasa, Paul) Organization: Kennedy Space Center, FL Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 08:45:07 -0400 Subject: Re: COZY: Cert. vs. Auto Engines Jim Marshall said >One in a Velocity, one in a Long-Eze. Those re-drives have been >back and forth to Ross's shop for bad seals, bearings new bell housings etc. >enough times to get their own frequent flyer acct. Velocity Aircraft also had problems with the PRSU on their Subaru Conversion. I don't know who made the PSU, but I do remember hearing that they also lost an oil seal. I believe they have know removed the Subaru from the airplane and replaced it with anouther engine; maybe the Franklin. Paul Krasa Long EZ 214LP !---*---! Date: Mon, 22 Jul 96 17:18:39 UT From: "Phillip Johnson" Subject: Re: COZY: Cert. vs. Auto Engines Paul Krasa writes > Velocity Aircraft also had problems with the PRSU on their Subaru Conversion. > I don't know who made the PSU, but I do remember hearing that they also > lost an oil seal. I believe they have know removed the Subaru from the > airplane and replaced it with anouther engine; maybe the Franklin. Velocity and I have been in relatively close contact on this one so I will try to pass on what I know. Velocity installed the Subaru engine in BIG ORANGE which is now pink I believe. The engine was installed using one of Lou Ross's PSRU's with a reduction ratio of 2.17:1. The engine was tested on an air boat for many hours to test the PSRU under high gyroscopic loads. The PSRU passed the test and they elected to install the engine into the Velocity. The installation was done without too much thought and some of the fundamentals were not carefully thought out. The flow of oil to the PSRU was too high and the planetary drive acted as an oil pump pushing out the seal. The new design does not permit this to happen. This is a known problem and all that is required is that a flow rate reducer (small orifice) be placed in the oil line that feeds the gear box. The resulting problem is similar to those encountered by Lycoming on the 0-360 which is why Nat recommended some fix a few news letters ago, and didn't the new Franklin just suffer a similar problem. When I last spoke with Scott Swing of Velocity he told me that they were happy with the engine but it needed more development but they could not afford the time. Their factory was up to capacity and their business was composites not engines so they put it on the back burner. Phillip Johnson Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 06:18:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "George A. Graham" Subject: Measuring Horsepower I am aware that horsepower is a calculation of torque multiplied by RPM divided by 5500, (old memory-not gospel). But, how do you measure the output of an engine without a dynometer ? Modified E-Racer #206 Strakes and Engine next George Graham {ca266@freenet.buffalo.edu} ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- airsoob is hosted courtesy of Interstice Inc., a provider of reasonably priced virtual domain hosting for the world, and dedicated circuit and dialup for Silicon Valley. http://www.interstice.com (408) 369-4490 From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Measuring Horsepower (fwd) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 9:51:33 EDT George Graham (who came to visit last weekend) wrote: >I am aware that horsepower is a calculation of torque multiplied by >RPM divided by 5500, (old memory-not gospel). But, how do you measure >the output of an engine without a dynometer ? Well, the glib answer is, "you don't" :-). Since a "dynomometer" is by definition something with which you measure power output, then anything you use to measure power output is a dynomometer. Of course, you'd actually like some information about how to measure power output without using a dyno at a speed shop or paying money for it, right? Since you always know the RPM (since you have a tachometer) all you need to measure is the torque. You can do this in one of at least two ways: Transmission dynomometer - if you know how to use strain gauges, you can measure the strain in a calibrated output shaft, and get the torque output that way. Absorption dynamometers - you can build a "prony brake" (described on page 16-18 of Mark's Handbook of Mechanical Engineering - Eighth Edition). This is a gizmo which uses readily available materials to apply friction to a rotating drum. A simple equation gives you the torque absorbed into the brake depending upon the weights used on the brake. You squeeze a spring to increase the torque applied. For power outputs in the 150 - 200 HP range (which is what I assume you're interested in measuring) The proney brake is absorbing a LOT of power, and will get VERY hot - a stream of water from a hose would probably be very helpful. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com by Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil (PMDF V5.0-5 #13155) id <01I8CGAJJI6I94DO9V@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil> for cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 13:42:11 -0400 (EDT) (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04310; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 13:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 13:42:15 -0400 (EDT) From: triley@C38FS0.Npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Tom Riley) Subject: COZY: Throttle Body ??? Can someone explain what a "throttle body" is vice a standard carburetor, (or direct me to a good book that will)? Is there a difference? I suspect from what little I've read, that it's some sort of "poor man's" fuel injection system, but I'm completely ignorant in this area. If different from a standard carburetor, does it still need carb heat? Any info would be appreciated. Tom Riley Cozy MK4 S/N 113 Chap. 8 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 17:25:34 -0400 From: John Galt <74744.2301@compuserve.com> Subject: Re COZY: Throttle Body ??? Tom Riley wrote: >I suspect from what little I've read, that it's some >sort of "poor man's" fuel injection system I wouldn't exactly call it a poor man's model. I have the Ellison info pack (dated June 1, 1995) and the price of the EFS 4-5 model is $1499. As if the engine isn't expensive enough, the accessories are gonna eat my lunch. William E. Buckley (Cozy Mk IV, #437, Chap 9) 74744.2301@compuserve.com Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 12:31:09 -0400 From: Paul Burkhardt Subject: COZY: Fuel injection Would like to talk to anyone who has used or is comtemplating using fuel injection on their 0360's . I'm looking at the unit made by Airflow performance. I'd like to know how this unit compares to the stock unit that came with the engine( Bendix I believe). Thanks. Paul Burkhardt Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 21:24:56 -0400 From: StetsonE@aol.com Subject: Fwd: COZY: Fuel injection In a message dated 96-08-17 12:34:24 EDT, pburkha238@iop.com (Paul Burkhardt) writes: > Would like to talk to anyone who has used or is comtemplating using fuel > injection on their 0360's . I'm looking at the unit made by Airflow > performance. I'd like to know how this unit compares to the stock unit > that came with the engine( Bendix I believe). Thanks. > Paul Burkhardt > I've installed an Airflow Performance unit on my O-320. It's a solidly built unit, although I haven't run it yet. Experimental Aviation (Berkut) swear by these units. I had to go with fuel injection because a carb won't fit in the Berkut cowl I've installed. Figure two grand for the unit when its all said and done, including the unit, boost pump, injectors and lines, fuel filter, throttle body elbow, etc. The company is great with builder support. Don at Airflow will spend as much time with you over the phone as you'll need. AN920 push-pull cables are also strongly recommended on this unit. Figure at least another $100.00 bucks for those cause you'll have to have them specially built for the lengths you'll need. Also figure on extra effort to modify the Brock type throttle quadrant to handle the push-pull cable ends, and extra bucks for rodends on the cables. This is a lot of money to spend. If you can get by with a carb, I'd say go with a carb. You have specific instructions on a carb installation, which you don't with this unit. You can always retrofit later. At least you'll be flying! Also figure adding 100 hours to the project to get all this stuff hooked up. Much of the extra time will be devoted to figuring how to incorporate all the pieces parts into your airframe. No specific instructions are available on how to do this, so you're pretty much on your own. I can't help you with a comparison between the Airflow unit and a Bendix. Stet Elliott stetsone@aol.com Perpetual Long-EZ builder --------------------- Forwarded message: From: pburkha238@iop.com (Paul Burkhardt) Sender: owner-cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com Reply-to: pburkha238@iop.com (Paul Burkhardt) To: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com Date: 96-08-17 12:34:24 EDT Would like to talk to anyone who has used or is comtemplating using fuel injection on their 0360's . I'm looking at the unit made by Airflow performance. I'd like to know how this unit compares to the stock unit that came with the engine( Bendix I believe). Thanks. Paul Burkhardt Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:19:31 -0400 From: wilhelmson@scra.org Subject: Re[2]: COZY: Fuel injection My experience with Bendix fuel injection systems is that they are the ultimate in induction system ice problem elimination. Flew over 3000 hrs through all kinds of clouds and weather with no induction ice problems. Even when the rest of the airframe was loaded with it. The problem with them is hot starting. THIS problem is well known and is attributed to flooding, vapor lock, and a lot of other things. My experience with ELLISON throttle body system is about 500 hrs. Some ice on the airframe, no ice in the induction system, one complete failure causing a forced landing. This failure could have been ice, the actual cause was never identified.(use carb. heat or a fuel system back up for safety). No starting problems of any kind. Very good leaning characteristics(smooth) no rougness at all as the engine goes completely lean. Very simple installation, however, the need for carb. heat or fuel system backup causes the complexity to increase to the full injection system level. Considering the price of the Ellison now. I would go with the full(multi port) fuel injection system. Especially if the hot start problem can be elliminated. Someone ask about the term "throttle body" versus CARB. The major difference is the fact that any fuel system that uses a atmospheric float chamber and depends on gravity to keep the fuel in it is a carburator. Systems that inject the fuel and depend on a full time pressure source are fuel injectors. Fuel injector systems must measure the air flow to determine the amount of fuel to inject. This and the pilot control of engine power is the job of the "throttle body". All injection systems have one. Some inject the fuel at a common point for all cylinders(Ellison) and others inject the fuel at the cylinder intake valve.(Bendix and many others). Wilhelms@scra.org Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 07:52:54 From: RSiebert1@gnn.com (Reid Siebert) Subject: COZY: Good Engine Information Hello Gang, I've noticed lately we are getting alot of basic engine related questions. At Oshkosh I found a very useful engine info resource at where else, the Lycoming booth. They print and distribute, FREE OF CHARGE, a 100-page book called "Key Reprints". It is a compilation of useful articles from their old "Lycoming Flyer" customer newsletter. In it you will find the first section of articles on general topics such as nitriding cylinder walls, and fuel injection versus carburetion. Section two covers engine operation, with articles on new engine break-in, cold weather operations, engine starting, spark plug fouling, avoiding sticking valves, and interpreting your engine instruments. Section three goes over engine maintenance. It covers questions about oil changes, filter maintenance, spark plug care, sudden stoppage, nose oil seal leakage, top overhaul, high time cylinders, and starter troubleshooting. All together there are 100 articles of invaluable information from Lycomings engineers and field service reps. Certainly worth more than its price tag. I'm an A&P mechanic who has moved on to working on jet engines, and have found the book to be a great refresher. It has enabled me to talk intelligently with my engine builder, and has aided in my final determination of engine and prop specifications. Where to get it: Key Reprints Textron Lycoming 652 Oliver Street Williamsport, PA 17701 Phone: 717-327-7278 Fax: 717-327-7022 Enjoy it.. Reid Siebert Date: Mon, 2 Sep 96 20:00:26 -0800 From: Eric_Westland@msvl.wednet.edu (Eric Westland) Organization: Marysville School Dist. Subject: COZY: O-320 in a Mark IV? I could use some help thinking through the issues surrounding an O-320 in a Mark IV. What brought this to mind was Tim's plane. Then tonight I talked on the phone with an EZ pilot that develops engines for NASA. He has an O-320 in his plane with high compression pistons that puts out 190 h.p. I know of another EZ pilot that just had an O-320 built up to 177 h.p. Considering they are cheaper than O-360's and weigh less, what are the disadvantages of going this route?? Of course, I am hoping there are none :-). -eric -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Sent via ExpressNet/SMTP(tm), Internet Gateway of the Gods! ExpressNet/SMTP (c)1994-95 Delphic Software, Inc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 08:20:36 From: RSiebert1@gnn.com (Reid Siebert) Subject: Re: COZY: O-320 in a Mark IV? >Date: Mon, 2 Sep 96 20:00:26 -0800 >From: Eric_Westland@msvl.wednet.edu (Eric Westland) >Considering they are cheaper than O-360's and weigh less, what are >the disadvantages of going this route?? Of course, I am hoping >there are none. Hello Eric, I've been researching the advantages of a "souped up" O-360 and have been talking to Barrett Performance Aircraft, in Tulsa, about doing it for me. First and foremost, in terms of safety, reliability, and extra power, it is very expensive when compared to buying a used engine. The Lycoming book, "Key Reprints" also discusses the various aspects of engine modification, and I think you should read it before getting your hopes up. A remanufactured and customized 220-hp IO-360 will cost me well over $25,000, and will be an unforgiving engine that only I will be able to operate, because it will run near the edge of pulling itself apart or burning holes in the pistons. Lycoming has spent many years testing engine designs, and horsepowers. The engines they offer embody the compromises necessary for maximum performance, safety, and the ability to reach TBO, even in the hands of careless pilots. If you aren't an A&P mechanic, and don't have a good engine rebuilder to work with... forget it. Invest the $12,000 in a good constant speed prop, it will help you to safely get more horses out of your engine. Hope this helps... Reid Siebert Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 11:28:58 EDT From: wlanza@wingnut.mlb.semi.harris.com (Wayne Lanza) Subject: COZY: Lycoming O-320 engines & Constant Speed Props Eric Westland requested information/recommendations on using an O-320 in a Cozy MK4. The first Velocity I flew had a higher time O-320 and a wood prop. It flew just fine considering that it weighed 1150# empty and was also carrying about 60 gallons of fuel and had 375# of beef in the front. Cruise was ~175kts @1000ft MSL & take off climb was between 1200-1400fpm. I was with Velocity designer Danny Maher at the time & he seemed to indicate some reluctance with respect to loading up the airplane on a high density altitude type of day. Take off and climb rates would have been marginal mostly due to the prop and I also think that that engine was getting a little tired. That particular Velocity was sold and is still flying today with the same (but rebuilt) 160HP O-320. In conversation with Duane Swing (the new owner of Velocity aircraft) he asked me if I knew anyone who might be in the market for a constant speed prop for a 160HP engine. It turns out that he has about four MT 3 bladed constant speed propellors, some new, some used. I was considering using one on my MK3 but decided not to make that big of a change in my project so late in the game (close to finished). If you are not going to carry heavy loads on hot days taking off from Denver or Mexico City, the 160HP/CS prop combination might present a viable option. As I recall the asking price for the MT props was about $2500.00. If you decide to go for it, you'll also need a prop governor, and an engine that's set up for a CS prop. A non-CS case is easiliy modified by your engine shop and you might be able to make a swap-out for the CS type crankshaft. This may sound like alot of work/money but consider the O-360/wood prop costs (& weight!) differences against a decent O-320/CS prop combination. If anyone wants me to check on the props or engines for them, I will. If you want to call Velocity to inquire, ask for Duane or Scott Swing. Velocity Inc. (561) 589-1860 Good Luck & Safe Flying, Wayne Lanza aka Composite Design (561) 664-8953 Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 20:05:54 -0700 From: Michael Antares Subject: COZY: Franklin engine update Susan and I visited Nat the Saturday before the labor day weekend. We arrived at his home at 7:00 am on Saturday after making an 800 mile drive from northern California to Mesa on Friday and he and Shirley were gracious enough to give us both individual rides in his Cozy (our first). I never knew that Katanas and Cessnas could hover--at least that's what they seemed to do as we passed them in the Cozy. I really didn't need any incentive to keep building but if I did the ride would have been it. After flying Piper Warriors and 172s for the past many years what a joy to fly a REAL airplane! After the flights we went back to their home and talked Franklin engine for several hours and also got a tour of Shirley's paintings. She is a superb watercolor artist and we were quite amazed at her skill. Concerning the Franklin--Nat did a temperature check during the flight he did with me and achieved a balance of 18 degrees with all cylinders hovering in the 380 degree range. He was quite pleased at the results but they came at the expense of a small air scoop on one of the strakes. He has the oil cooler mounted in the strake and has increased its capacity to 13 veins. He said he will continue to try and eliminate this extra drag and get the necessary cooling from the main air supply. He also enlarged the cowling somewhat and my personal opinion is that it looks even better than the original. Based on this result he advised me to go ahead and start the import effort although he is not willing to 'officially' bless the Franklin installation until he has completed the cooling effort and is satisfied that he has an acceptable installation. I personally appreciate his conservative approach and as far as I'm concerned he can take as long as he feels necessary. We talked quite awhile about the comparison between the O-360 and the Franklin. At this time he feels that the performance is comparable. The Franklin is perhaps a little quieter and smoother but he wasn't ready to say that there was any significant increase in other parameters. He said that the fuel consumption seemed about the same and the installation effort was about the same. That leaves the only rationale to use a Franklin as a potential significant cost saving and the ability to actually purchase one (assuming that most of us cannot afford a new Lycoming). He asked me what I would choose and I replied that if the price was within a couple of thousand dollars of each other I would choose a Lycoming, my major reason being the rather volatile political climate in Poland which could result in an inability to purchase spare parts some years later. If the price difference is several thousand dollars then I would probably choose the Franklin. In any case I am going to proceed with trying to determine what Franklin engines can be imported for if we are prepared to purchase them in blocks of x (perhaps 10 at a time). They will come sans accessories and sans spares so getting the bare engine is only the start. I believe Nat is also going to talk to Pat Goodwin at Atlas and see if something might be set up to give Cozy builders some kind of a significant discount. I have no idea what Pat is paying for the engines so his ability to discount may or may not exist. Y'all may ask, what's in it for me? I would like to get an engine at the best possible price like everyone else. I've done some importing in the past so I'm reasonably aware of what one has to go through to do it. It's a challenge and I like that. I would like to ultimately be reimbursed for my effort but I'm not in it to make a profit or start a new business. If anyone thinks they are more capable or have more time or more contacts, I'm more than willing to bow out. I don't believe that it would not be advisable to have several people trying to contact Franklin that are representing our group and I say this based on my back-and-forth with Franklin so far. Dealing with Franklin is nothing like dealing with a typical American company! I have no idea at this time how long the effort will take or if it will be successful. "Successful" for me means being able to import a Franklin engine that can be offered to our group for $10,000 or less (not including accessories). This would presumbably bring the total cost to $13-$14K. This is enough under the (possibly) Lycoming cost of $18K (I say possibly because I don't know if this price includes accessories--perhaps someone in our group can answer that) to make it an attractive alternative. I will keep you all informed of progress. As an aside I also passed on to Nat the sizeable number of complaints about Brock. Speaking from personal experience I said that I was more disturbed about the uneven quality than their prices although their prices are certainly on the very high side. He defended their prices to some extent by saying that they raised prices only every few years so a price increase tended to be much higher than one years inflation would suggest. He also said they were the only shop that was willing to carry an inventory and that of course means we have to pay for the interest on that inventory. I still wish there was competition and I personally am going to invest in a "Smithy" (a combination lathe/mill) to give me some control. I won't save enough to justify buying one on that basis alone but I can rationalize it a bit on the ability to make my own parts and even more because I just want it! Sorry for the long discourse... 6077 Old Redwood Highway Penngrove CA 94951 707.664.1171 Cozy#413 Finished through chap 14 except chap 13. Chaps 16 & 24 mostly finished. Now on chap 19. Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 09:33:29 -0700 (MST) From: ej89177@goodnet.com (Ed Neilander) Subject: COZY: cozy: franklin update Thought everyone would like a update to Michael Antares note. I flew nats airplane yesterday while he checked some instrument data after some more cowling changes, pimarilly moving the oil cooler to the top of the cowl in the same location as the Lycoming. this really cleaned up the cowling by removing the scoop from the strake. performance as follows: altitude of 5000, power at 2650 RPM, oil temp at 210F, cyl heads tenps at 370F, speed of 170kts indicated, fuel burn at 9.0gph, OAT at 98F. Nat also took the airplane up to 9000 and firewalled it and the engine showed 2900 RPM at 225MPH ground speed. climbout was at 1700FPM on the 5000FT run. All of the previous heat problems seem to have been worked out and all that remains are some minor oil seep problems and a question of wether or not we are getting the max power available as the engine exhaust is always on the lean side when you look at the pipes. I can elaborate on the engine now as i have flown Nats airplane with both the Lycoming and the Franklin. The Franklin is considerably smoother and the exhaust noise is different and much more quiet. Nat is still using the same prop but will change it with a new one shortly to try and optimize the power. Nat does not notice the differences as much as I do because he has been flying this power plant now for appx. 90 days and has forgoten how much the Lycoming vibrated and how much louder it was. Nat figures all of the changes and painting should be done by the Copperstate fly in on October 11-13 and he will then have a weight and balance calculated that he will share with us. I hope that some of you will make Copperstate as Nat will be doing forums and this is a great event in both aircraft and weather at this time of year. Temperatures should be in the 80-90 range and Dry, and the event is at the old Williams A.F.fighter traing base with three 11,000ft runways. As a final note on costs as to Michaels letter, I have gotten some core pricing on o-360 / io-360 motors and if you shop around they can be had without acc. for between $3500.00 - $4500.00. Add to this about $6000.00 - $8000.00 is what our Lycon overhaul shop says you will spend in rebuild. This gives us a cost of about $9500.00 - $12,500.00 for a used rebuilt engine compared to a new engine for about $11,000.00 - $12,000.00.Plus your aftermarket lightweight accessories of ignition, alternator,starter,fuel pump, and ignition system of between $2500.00 - $4000.00 depending on your preferences of products, but this would be the same for both scenarios. Compare this to Nats or Vans price of about $19,500.00 for a new Lycoming 0-360 that is sold only with carburetor and all of their accessories. Thats all for now!! Ed Neilander Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 21:40:33 -0700 From: "Steven D. Sharp" Subject: Re: COZY: Franklin engine update TMKPIDA@aol.com wrote: > > Dear Group, > O.K. So let's say (just for argument) that the Franklin is the best thing > since sliced bread. If I buy one (tomarrow) how do I keep it nice 'n fresh > for several YEARS until I'm ready for it. > > I would mainly consider buying the engine early on to lock in a 'good' price. > > Opinions?? > > Tom Kennedy > #248 > Finishing up my BEAUTIFUL Canard. I had the opportunity to attend the Lyncosaursis Trouble Shooting short course several years ago. They have a procedure for pickeling engines that is well documented and readily available. I have seen Lyco's that have been crated for tens of years, unpacked, depickeled and fired up. I was impressed. I'm sure the folks in Mobile have similar procedures. I'd contact Williamsport & get the bulletin that covers pickeling and at least review it. My $0.02 worth. Steve Sharp cozyiii@earthlink.net Itching has become a way of life - winter is for healing - summer is for building glass airplanes!!!!!!! Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:44:30 -0600 (MDT) From: Roy Grossinger Subject: Re: COZY: Franklin engine update > Dear Group, > O.K. So let's say (just for argument) that the Franklin is the best thing > since sliced bread. If I buy one (tomarrow) how do I keep it nice 'n fresh > for several YEARS until I'm ready for it. > > I would mainly consider buying the engine early on to lock in a 'good' price. > > Opinions?? > > Tom Kennedy > #248 > Finishing up my BEAUTIFUL Canard. > I've gotten a little experience with this in the military. You replace the spark plugs with desiccant plugs. Drain the oil, and place a desiccant bag into it. Every 3 - 6 months you should run the engine at an idle if possible to recoat the inside with oil, and lay the engine up with desiccant again. You never want moisture to enter the system, and you want to prevent to seals from drying out and cracking. If you can't run the engine, turning it over mechanically will also work. Also, I doubt that this may be possible with the Franklin, you should pre-lube the engine. Some engines you can run the oil pump before starting an engine if it is used infrequently. Roy Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:14:26 From: JRaerocad@gnn.com (Jeff Russell) Subject: COZY: Re: Engine Installation Ed Richards writes: >This is sort of a strange question but I m not sure who else to ask. I am puzzled by the clearance, or lack > of it, between the firewall and > the end of the > oil filter. With the engine mounted there is less than 1/8" > between the hex cap > on the filter and the firewall. It appears that I will have to > pull the engine to change the filter? What s wrong with this picture? Could I have the wrong > accessory case or do I need to remote mount the filter? Any help > would be greatly appreciated. Ed, Yes this is a problem that we all will have. Your choice what to do. I use a NAPA oil filter that is smaller in hight. I safety it using a hose clamp around it and then safety wire the clamp to the engine. This is much cheeper then a remote filter setup. I can get the P/N for you if you like. AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 phone/fax 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com http://www.windev.com/aerocanard Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 16:49:05 -0400 From: COZYMK4@aol.com Subject: COZY: Lyc. O-320 engines During July, 4 of the EAA members from Lubbock went to Mineral Wells, TX and purchased Lyc. O-320 engines from Bobby Osborn for their RV 4-6(A). They told me about an IO-360 that was there with a broken prop flange from a gear-up landing in a Mooney 201 that was for sale for $4500. It would cost $3800 for a new shaft but Bobby promised to help find one and also offered a full money back guarantee if I didn't like the engine. After Oshkosh and seeing Tim Merrell's O-320 Mark IV with variable pitch prop, I considered doing the same thing. On August 21, I drove to Bobby's place with one of the happy customers who was able to rebuild his engine to zero time in less than 3 weeks. I looked at the engines and chose a O-320 E2A with prop govenor, starter, oil cooler, carberator, and new dual mags. Bobby sold the whole deal for $5000 with tax and the full money back guarantee. I tore the engine down that weekend and cleaned most of it. For 29 years in a Cherokee and 3311 hours with out ever being torn down, the engine was in great shape. Two lobes on the cam were worn ($400 for a new cam shaft) and 2 rockers were worn at the push rods. The interior of the engine was as clean as a 20 hour engine ( no grunge ). The fuel pump rubber seal / diaphragm was beginning to crack and so I can get a core trade in on a reconditioned one easily. I have a starter for sale since I want one of the light weight B&C starters, also the carberator, and prop governor connection since I want a non-hydraulic prop pitch adjustment. I asked Bobby if I could pay out the bill with him since my accountant had paid more bills than he was supposed to, and shorted me the $4000 for the IO-360. Bobby looked crossways at me and said that I could pay it out in a longer amount of time than I asked for. Heck of a way to do business. He believes in customer satisfaction. Bobby lives at an old AirCorp military trainging base with the control tower attatched to his house. The first hanger has his plane and his sons with usual garage stuff and boxes of new O-360 engines that he puts into Civil Air Patrol C-172's and then stores and sells the O-320's. The engines are usually at 1990 hours (2000 hour TBO), but are well kept. His second hanger was full of engines and parts with shelves stacked 5 high in used engines of all types, including turbines. His third hanger is for stuff that he hasn't checked out or dealt with yet. The ramp is a treasure trove also. With variable pitch, I hope to get nearly the same performance, a little cheaper cost, a reduced repair and maintenence cost, and a little fuel savings. Some A&P's say that the O-320 will run smoother and quieter than the O-360. A certified engine with only a few hours is also good for resale if I decide later to swap up to an O-360. With O-360's harder to find and getting more expensive, I think that this will be a good deal. Bobby Osborn BLO (airport identifier) Bobby's Planes 'N Parts 358 degree, 11.5 nm from 9061 F.M. 1885 Milsap VOR 117.7 Weatherford, TX 76088 Lat 45' 35.180 (817) 682-4220 Long 123' 00.750 Fax (817) 682-4264 Sunset Airpark Kevin Funk Cozy Mk 4 #90 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:21:20 -0600 (CST) From: Bill Jackson Subject: COZY: Engines Hello all, I've been checking around on the net for availability of used 0-360 engines and find they are hard to come by. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places or my timing is bad. Can anyone recommend sources? Also, there seems to be many versions of the 0-360, from a homebuilders standpoint, which versions are the most desirable? Is it better to buy a core and have it rebuilt, buy a low time engine, or buy a new engine? Bill Jackson USACERL Champaign, IL (I bought the info kit) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:09:33 -0500 From: Mahan Subject: COZY:Engine Info Site Sorry for the incorrect site address. Greg Travis's engine info is at: http://gtravis.ucs.indiana.edu/Engines/Lycoming/Lyc_Cert_list.html Fred in Florida Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:18:08 -0400 From: janef@montcalm.cc.mi.us (Jane Faussett) Subject: COZY:Engine Info Site For all of you hungry for information on the various models of the O-360 (and there are many!), check out the site Greg Travis at Indiana University has provided: http://gtravis/ucs.indiana.edu/Engines/Lycoming/Lyc_Cert_list.html Fred in Florida Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 23:17:43 -0800 From: Paul Comte Subject: Re: COZY: Engines cac%exo.com@exo.com wrote: > I am suprised at hearing that an engine should be run very little on the ground > during break-in. I have heard various break-in regimes from other builders and > Sport Avation that suggest breaking in the engine on the ground with various > RPM settings. The only bad thing they said about it was being forced to listen > to the engine for hours at various speeds. Is the limitation reguarding ground > running the engine for pushers only? Cooling and the danger from the prop coming to grief with loose materials would be the greatest source of problems. I remember seeing a hood (Bingelis' book?) added on duct cooling air through a tractor installation. If built well this could work for pushers. It would need to be sturdy to keep from caving in to the prop. If a prop club and an alternate source of cooling is used it would have to monitor that additional system carefully. With a prop the cooling stops with the engine stopping, with a prop club and external blowers the engine could run on without cooling. Another concern would be to maintain even cooling during the break in process. I've never asked but don't engine shops offer a break in service? That sure would remove a lot of doubts for first flight. Paul Comte MKE, WI Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 08:35:20 -0500 From: Mahan Subject: Re: COZY: Engines Mahan wrote: > > Paul Comte wrote: > > > Cooling and the danger from the prop coming to grief with loose materials > > would be the greatest source of problems. I remember seeing a hood > > (Bingelis' book?) added on duct cooling air through a tractor installation. > > If built well this could work for pushers. It would need to be sturdy > > to keep from caving in to the prop. > > It occured to me not long ago that you could use the big "scoop" to > break > in a pusher if you can borrow a tractor prop. I'd be reluctant to break > the engine in as a pusher because, if I remember the words that went > with the > scoop drawing, a lot of the cooling effect was because of the propellor > blast > being "gathered up" by the scoop and used to cool the engine. You > wouldn't get > that if breaking the engine in with the pusher prop. I can't remember > where I > saw the drawing of the scoop, either. > > Fred in Florida Date: Fri, 29 Nov 96 14:05:06 +0000 From: cac%exo.com@exo.com Subject: Re: COZY: Engines > From: "Mahan" > having an unproven engine in a new airplane. Freshly overhauled > engines, especially chrome ones, must be ground run very little or else > the rings will glaze and never seat, you'll use oil like crazy, there'll > be lots of blow-by, and you'll have to top the engine. If you can't do > much ground running, you can't do the passes up and down the runway to > get the "feel" of your airplane. I was lucky enough to have a very > > Fred in Florida > I am suprised at hearing that an engine should be run very little on the ground during break-in. I have heard various break-in regimes from other builders and Sport Avation that suggest breaking in the engine on the ground with various RPM settings. The only bad thing they said about it was being forced to listen to the engine for hours at various speeds. Is the limitation reguarding ground running the engine for pushers only? From: "Doug Solinger" Subject: COZY: Engine break-in Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 17:13:53 -0600 I made a hood to break my engine in. I used a prop from a Piper. It worked well. I do not have time to give you all of the information now, if you want it let me know and I will post it. Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 22:32:45 -0500 From: AllegroAvi@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: Engines I ran my 320 in on the ground with an ordinary prop and the cowls off. It was 90 plus out and I had no problem and a perfect breakin. Don't sweat it, just keep the CHTs under three hundred fifty F. and increase the RPM and length of run time till you can run it safely up to full power and for ten min. or so at idle with no overheating. I works, I ran mine for about a total of an hour and twenty min. Good luck! Robin du bois Date: Fri, 29 Nov 96 20:10:02 -0800 From: Eric_Westland@msvl.wednet.edu (Eric Westland) Organization: Marysville School Dist. Subject: Re(2): COZY: Engines AllegroAvi@aol.com,Internet writes: I ran my 320 in on the ground with an ordinary prop and the cowls off. It was 90 plus out and I had no problem and a perfect breakin. Don't sweat it, just keep the CHTs under three hundred fifty F. and increase the RPM and length of run time till you can run it safely up to full power and for ten min. or so at idle with no overheating. I works, I ran mine for about a total of an hour and twenty min. Good luck! Robin du bois ++++++++++++++++++++ Robin, Thanks for the info. Were your cylinders new (nitrided), nitrided that had ben overbored 0.010" or one of the versions of chrome? -eric -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Sent via ExpressNet/SMTP(tm), Internet Gateway of the Gods! ExpressNet/SMTP (c)1994-95 Delphic Software, Inc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 19:32:59 -0500 From: AllegroAvi@aol.com Subject: Re: Re(2): COZY: Engines Eric, my cylinders were overhualed by ECI if I remember right, and are steel nitride, not chrome, which last I avoided on general superstition that people had a problem breaking them in...I don't recall the condition of the bore, whether .010 over or what. I had the engine done by Bob Barrows in VA, he still advertises in Sport Av. if you need work done he's very reasonable and my engine seems to be in good shape! What kind of temperature reading equip. do you have installed? Maybe we can work out a deal for a fellow Cozy type on a guage...We don't yet have one, but as soon as we can I'd like to make up a unit to loan out to Cozy/Central States folks for just what you are doing. Engines are expensive and it would be a service to fellow EZ people and good advertising for us! stay cool...and your engine too Robin du Bois Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 17:27:58 From: JRaerocad@gnn.com (Jeff Russell) Subject: COZY: Cozy: I0-360 ??? Eric Westland wrote: = >an Lyc. IO-360 200 HP engine? I am giving this some serious >consideration = Fred in Florida wrote: >Food for thought, Eric: The 200 hp IO-360 weighs 29 to 50 lb more = than >the lightest O-360. Balance that with 20 lb in the nose, and you've >added at least 50 lb to your airframe. Good luck when you pick that >20-lb heavier nose up the first 12 inches. Are you gonna cut your >useful load, or placard your airframe at a higher-than-plans weight? = >How about the plans mount -- is it up to the task? You'll have to = make >up your own baffleing -- different patterns. The 200 hp IO-360 uses = 1.8 >gph more @ 75% than the O-360. The 200 hp IO-360 is a more highly >stressed engine than the O-360 and the 180 hp IO-360, has a poorer >service record, and has a shorter TBO. I strongly disagree with what Fred said about the IO-360 engines. I = have = had an 0-360-A1A in a C-175 that I installed as a conversion from a = GO-300. I also have a I0-360-C1E6 that I installed in the AeroCanard. The 0-360 A1A was 30 lbs lighter then the IO-360-C1E6 that=92s on the = AeroCanard. Not 50 lbs. The C1E6 is the largest and heaviest IO-360 That lycoming has. It has shown to be at the same RPM settings = almost 2 GPH less fuel then the 0-360 that was on the Cessna. The only = difference I did in the insulation of the IO-360 is one electronic = and one mag were the 0-360 had 2 mags. If the setups were with both having 2 mags, there should only be about 10% difference in fuel flow with the electronic conversion. As for a poorer service record and a shorter TBO, the I0-360-C1E6 has a 2000 hour TBO. The 0-360-A1A had a (no operating zone) at about 1850-2050 RPM because of engine to prop vibration. It also had a = 2000 hour TBO. The I0-360 engine mount is a H-style mount so that to servo will not interfere with the servo. We have these style engine mounts made and sold for $130.00 less that what Ken Brock sells the = standard Cozy MKIV 0-360 mount. This engine mount was engineered to be stronger than the 0-360 mount. = This is my 2nd engine mount that I have flown for a total of 500 = hours so far. Pat Young also used one of these mounts on his Cozy that = fell 6000 feet hitting the ground in a main wing stall. The engine mount was bent up, but not broke. We have sold about 25 of these mounts. Yes you might want to add nose weight if installing a larger engine but if you plan on using a electric nose lift anyway, the engine can be balanced with less weight penalty or a higher useful load can be carried in the front seat. Nuff said. AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 phone/fax 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com NEW homepage address: http://www.binary.net/aerocad Date: Wed, 4 Dec 96 10:30:10 -0800 From: Eric_Westland@msvl.wednet.edu (Eric Westland) Organization: Marysville School Dist. Subject: COZY: IO-360?? Who is flying or planning on flying soon with an Lyc. IO-360 200 HP engine? I am giving this some serious consideration and would like to make contact with those that have been or are heading down that road. TIA, Eric -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Sent via ExpressNet/SMTP(tm), Internet Gateway of the Gods! ExpressNet/SMTP (c)1994-95 Delphic Software, Inc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 02:23:21 -0500 From: Mahan Subject: Re: COZY: IO-360?? Eric Westland wrote: an Lyc. IO-360 200 HP engine? I am giving this some serious consideration Food for thought, Eric: The 200 hp IO-360 weighs 29 to 50 lb more than the lightest O-360. Balance that with 20 lb in the nose, and you've added at least 50 lb to your airframe. Good luck when you pick that 20-lb heavier nose up the first 12 inches. Are you gonna cut your useful load, or placard your airframe at a higher-than-plans weight? How about the plans mount -- is it up to the task? You'll have to make up your own baffleing -- different patterns. The 200 hp IO-360 uses 1.8 gph more @ 75% than the O-360. The 200 hp IO-360 is a more highly stressed engine than the O-360 and the 180 hp IO-360, has a poorer service record, and has a shorter TBO. My .02 worth. Fred in Florida