Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 14:40:16 -0500 From: Paul Burkhardt Subject: COZY: optical ice detectors I read in CSA ( or maybe hear on th WEB) that someone was usng an optical ice detector to detect ice in the carburator. Where can I find information on this item. cost? etc. will it work on an Ellison? Thanks Paul Burkhardt Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 12:21:47 -0800 Subject: COZY: auto conversion steps From: alwick@juno.com (ok How) Howdy fellow Cozy builders! I finally purchased a 2.5 liter Subaru engine for my MkIV. I plan on documenting the steps used to convert engine for the benefit of others interested. It seems pretty clear that auto conversions will be more and more common in future. Huge supply of auto engines, diminishing supply of $$ aircraft engines. Looks like my total conversion cost will be $3500 for 7gph. Not bad. I could post to this group, but there may not be that many interested. Perhaps it would be best to document in Word, and then periodically forward to those interested. Let me know what you think. I've been unable to find any comprehensive info on how to do conversion, (good pieces of info though), so I'll develop a tutorial. -al wick From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Thu, 05 Feb 98 16:53:44 -0600 Subject: COZY: Engine Just a quick update: Finally found my engine. Only took a couple years of diligent search/wait/search... Not in hand yet, but took pictures and made the commitment. It'll be here in a week or so. Vitals: - Subaru SVX - 3.3 Liter - 6 Cyl - 230 HP (rated in the car) - Conceived: (specifics unknown, but suspect it was sometime after 1940) - Born: 1996 - TT: ~10K miles (ball park maybe 250 Hrs or so) Not even close to break-in yet. - Cost: $3,500 delivered (too much, but considerably better than Lyc or Franklin in similar condition/age and attachments) - Includes: all the accessories, uncut wiring harnesses, sensors, computer, alternator, air induction, fuel pump and pump modulator, all ignition, manifolds, mounts, crating, insurance, shipping, ad-nauseum. (wish I had gotten the whole car; the electric seat motors are nifty :-)) - Reduction drive: not yet decided; leaning toward planetary to keep thrust line straight; I have time. Goals (no particular order after the first one): 1. Put a modern engine on a modern airplane 2. Lower up-front cost (relative to age and prior use [apples to apples]) 3. Lower maintenance cost (both parts and labor) 4. More power for TO/Climb 5. More efficient cruise/operating cost 6. Longer range (as if I can go that long between pee breaks); or, trade less fuel for more useful payload (if I want to) 7. Auto Gas; most any flavor (excluding alcohol additives due to epoxy tanks); MUCH lower cost per unit; No STC needed. 8. Considerably smoother operation (personal and AC structural fatigue) 9. Lower torsional impulse loads on prop; more life out of prop, engine mount, accessories and so on 10. Cruise faster (if I want to) 11. Near Zero oil consumption (eat yer heart out Lyc-lovers) 12. Zero temp-shock concerns 13. Lots of cabin heat with zero carbon monoxide worry 14. Shorter warm-up Negatives (no particular order after the first one): 1. It's experimental (extra attention to details and added work) 2. If I were building the plane with the intention of selling it, I "might" see a lower demand (thus price); maybe... depends on how good a job I do and how well it works. 3. Auto gas may not always be "convenient" (more difficult to refuel) 4. It's not certified (for whatever benefit that label supposedly provides for antique engines) 5. Weight? Don't know yet if this is even a concern relative to an all-up IO-360 or all-up Franklin; AC balance is the issue, not the weight. I will need to determine the specific CG envelope and useful load for my airplane anyway. All-up weight should be very comparable to all-up Franklin. (I refer to the term 'all-up' to mean sit'n on the ramp ready to take off; nothing left out) 6. Take longer to finish 7. More time to fly off the restrictions 8. Will it work? My best calculated guesstimate, resulting in my best "SWAG" (Scientific Wild-Assed Guess) says it will. Actually, in all honesty, combining the number one goal listed above with the extraordinarily good design of the SVX makes "reasonably" good sense. At least it makes 'better' sense than building my own engine the way the Wright Brothers did. Whether it will work or not is indeed an unknown, and a bit more risky than swapping a Lycoming for a Franklin; BUT, I intend to find out. (At least I'll do a weight and balance before the first flight following an engine change; unlike a Franklin tester I know of :-)). 9. Low history; not 'proven' (better term is "accepted") in this application. Lycosaurus and Franklin are well proven/accepted, but still break; I expect mine "will" break too. At least the oil seals are cheaper. Quite a few EA-81s have been flying successfully since early 1980s; same manufacturer... Warm fuzzy anyway :-) 10. Less support from those who may have experimented before me (ie. many, many Lyc users and at least one Franklin) not many SVXs 11. Peer pressure. (Don't let my teen-agers see this note; they'd fall over laughing) :-) Unfortunately true though. 12. Did I say it's experimental; but, so is every homebuilt out there. Just as much a negative as Cozy is relative to span cans though. 13. More complex. Mostly due to more modern ignition, modern valve train, modern water cooling, modern metals, and modern engineering. At least it's not as complex as a Citation, an L1011 or the space shuttle; all of which have been known to fall out of the sky due to engine problems as well. :-) 14. Mount will be interesting; probably adopt a neat idea borrowed/stolen from a rebellious, displaced, English Canadian I know. :-) Just one fellow's approach. Presented FWW only. Larry Schuler Cozy-IV plans #500 lschuler@cellular.uscc.com From: Jim Hocut Subject: RE: COZY: Engine Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 05:50:52 -0800 For what it's worth, a friend of mine who's building a Velocity is using the Subaru SVX engine. He's designed the engine mount (with the help of a retired Cessna structural engineer), gone through the entire wiring harness with the help of a shop manual to determine what was needed and what wasn't, and currently has it mounted and running on a test stand mounted to a trailer. He's pretty much determined how to make do without an oxygen sensor so that it won't need to run on auto gas. So far Wayne has added at least a year to his project, and it will probably be closer to two years by the time he's done. I believe he's thinking about marketing the engine mount after he gets his plane flying and has enough time on the prototype to have confidence in it. In the meantime I'll see if he's at a point where he can share some information, sketches, etc., and will get his permission to publish his e-mail address here so that anyone who's interested can get in touch directly. Jim Hocut jhocut@mindspring.com From: N11TE@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:53:24 EST Subject: Re: COZY: Engine In a message dated 98-02-06 08:14:54 EST, lschuler@cellular.uscc.com writes: << Just a quick update: Finally found my engine. Only took a couple years of diligent search/wait/search... Not in hand yet, but took pictures and made the commitment. It'll be here in a week or so. Vitals: - Subaru SVX - 3.3 Liter - 6 Cyl - 230 HP (rated in the car) - Conceived: (specifics unknown, but suspect it was sometime after 1940) - Born: 1996 - TT: ~10K miles (ball park maybe 250 Hrs or so) Not even close to break-in yet. - Cost: $3,500 delivered (too much, but considerably better than Lyc or Franklin in similar condition/age and attachments) - Includes: all the accessories, uncut wiring harnesses, sensors, computer, alternator, air induction, fuel pump and pump modulator, all ignition, manifolds, mounts, crating, insurance, shipping, ad-nauseum. (wish I had gotten the whole car; the electric seat motors are nifty :-)) - Reduction drive: not yet decided; leaning toward planetary to keep thrust line straight; I have time. >> Larry: Just a suggestion, but you might want to give Scott Swing a call at Velocity. I believe they had this exact engine installed in the back of one of their Velocitys. As I recall, they used a planetary reduction and three blade wood prop. They had installed it with the original computer and sensors. However, they reported that it had some very strange harmonics and power problems so removed it. Originally, before I found my IO-540, I was very interested in this combination and did some preliminary investigation. A knowledgeable Subaru builder told me that to make it work I would need to remove all computers and put on an Airflow Performance fuel injection unit. He said their problems revolved around the sensors. Scott Swing told me that they just didn't have time to work out the problems. As to weight and balance, this engine should be very similiar to my IO-540. So, If interested, I could share my efforts to balance my engine weight. Good luck with this installation! I have always thought it was made for this plane. Tom Ellis N11TE@aol.com Cozy MKIV plans #25 now AeroCanard 540 From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Fri, 06 Feb 98 10:38:41 -0600 Subject: Re: COZY: Engine --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part" Tom Ellis wrote: >snip >Scott Swing told me that they just didn't have time to work out the problems. I talked to him a couple years ago at length as well; right after they took the SVX engine off. He really liked it. Did need some developement work; but as you mentioned, he decided to put their time into things like the clamshell door, adjustable seats and the XL. He had limited time resourses and simply had to make a decission favoring revenue. >As to weight and balance, this engine should be very similiar to my IO-540. >So, If interested, I could share my efforts to balance my engine weight. Tom, I think everyone would be interested; including me. >Good luck with this installation! I have always thought it was made for this >plane. Thanks. Larry Schuler MK-IV plans #500 lschuler@cellular.uscc.com --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT" Received: from gatekeep.uscc.com by cellular.uscc.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.11.00.3) ; Fri, 06 Feb 98 09:54:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from www.uscc.com (www.uscc.com [204.179.101.2]) by gatekeep.uscc.com with ESMTP id KAA23642 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:50:35 -0500 (EST) From: N11TE@aol.com Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.170]) by www.uscc.com with ESMTP id JAA17934 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:51:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from N11TE@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id UCTBa04922; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:53:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6b216479.34db31f7@aol.com> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:53:24 EST To: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com, cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38 --simple boundary-- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 14:56:44 +0000 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Larry, Good luck with the Subaru engine. re "Negatives (no particular order after the first one):" May I add one more, and this one has kept me a Lycoming fan. 15. No auto engine has been designed to run constantly at 65-75% of rated horse power as has the old Lycoming. The auto engine simply will not run as long or reliably in an airplane as it will in a car. The environment is totally different. A long time ago Burt Rutan tried to get a VW engine to work in the VEZ. I read once, after 4 crash landings in the desert he gave up and redesigned the airplane around an 0-200. I figure the earth has been plowed on this subject a number of times and it isn't worth my time to do it again, although it may well be for you. I say again, good luck. dd Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 14:32 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Pollock Subject: Re: COZY: Engine I believe the Subaru engine can be made into an effective powerplant for a Cozy, however, it MUST be changed from the original configuration for proper torque and reliability. We had a Subaru engine and Ross 1.85 gear reduction that we were going to use on our Velocity. After spending some time with Dick Rutan at our shop here in Dallas, we decided to forgo the R&D required and just put a Lycoming IO-360 on the Velocity. I am glad we did now. Our research on the Subaru reliability, etc. turned up a total cost of between $18,000 to $21,000 to get close to the reliability of the Lycoming. That was just too much. But, I do believe the engine will work if properly configured. By the way, Dick Rutan suggested that we start out with a powerplant that has a proven record (ie. Lycoming) and prove the airframe first. If the airframe checks out, then prove the experimental engine. I told him that the Velocity design was already proven. He basically said that the airplane that he is looking at now has not even flown, so how can it be proven. Two unknowns in the equation for the first flight is not healthy. I was a little irritated when Dick made the comment, but now I know he was right - he is still alive. :-) In any case, good luck to all who will push the flight envelope. :-) --- Michael.Pollock@mci.com Flying Velocity N173DT Building Cozy MKIV #643 From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Fri, 06 Feb 98 16:55:37 -0600 Subject: Re: COZY: Engine David wrote: >re "Negatives (no particular order after the first one):" >May I add one more, and this one has kept me a Lycoming fan. >15. No auto engine has been designed to run constantly at 65-75% of >rated horse power as has the old Lycoming. The auto engine simply will >not run as long or reliably in an airplane as it will in a car. The >environment is totally different. Those are pretty general statements about "ALL" auto engines. Unfortunately doesn't necessarily apply to "ALL" auto engines. The Subaru EA-81 was originally designed specifically for aircraft applications (for example). It 'might' apply to the Subaru SVX; I don't know for sure. However, the SVX is the same basic design as the EA-81, mostly just bigger. Don't get me wrong; it's an important aspect of "SOME" auto engines. I owned a Buick I wouldn't give a plugged nickle for; but Buick also has a real nice engine that I did consider. >A long time ago Burt Rutan tried to get a VW engine to work in the >VEZ. I read once, after 4 crash landings in the desert he gave up and >redesigned the airplane around an 0-200. Too bad he had a bad experience in his particular application. Wonder how the wright brothers felt with their's breaking all the time? Since there were two brothers, and they both contributed to their ouw engine construction, I suppose they just sat around and finger-pointed instead of figuring out how to make it better. I suspect burt wanted to sell plans, so he needed to make a choice on developement time or marketing. He did like the VW though; just didn't have time for it. Is the space shuttle still sitting on the ground? Or did they look at the problem and fix it? Gotta remember that a number of world records were set by Dick in Burt's AC "WITH" the VW engine. Time and range over a closed course in class was one of them; set at Oshkosh if I remember correctly. See the rather long article specifically about VW engines in this month's Experimenter. Explains why the VW is not always a good idea, but if done "correctly" has proven itself rather well. That engine was not designed with aircraft in mind at all; can't necessarily say the same about Subaru. For whatever it's worth, I think more problems are due to folks trying to get way too much power out of an engine; way beyond their original engineering. This is not necessary with the SVX on the Cozy (a big plus). Larry Schuler MK-IV #500 lschuler@cellular.uscc.com More cars are involved in accidents than are horses; therefore I should consider the horse as a better choice. Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 11:44:12 -0500 From: "Johnson, Phillip" Subject: COZY: Engine It is interesting to note that with exception to the Subaru SVX engine, all auto conversions used in aircraft are modified to produce more power than the manufacturer designed them to produce. The SVX engine is rated at 230 hp in the auto configuration and if you apply this power to a Cozy configuration in any flight condition other than climb, the aircraft will overspeed. Thus it is not possible to use all of the power except in short bursts. Other conversions are running continuously at power levels above the specified manufacturers maximum rated power. Reliability will fall exponentially in these conditions. The VW conversions that are sited in these posts use technology as old as the Lycosaurus and are hardly representative of current technology. These VW engines are also blue printed to extract more power than they were originally designed. The Subaru auto rally cars are using 2.0 litre engines and achieving 300 hp reliably. I understand that this is not continuos but the mean level is above 50%. which still yields 75hp per litre. At 3.3 litres and 75hp per litre this yields approx. 250hp. Now I know that someone is going to say yes but it is only for a few hours total between engine strip down which is true however the shock loads in auto rallying are orders of magnitude higher than in aviation. The real source of low reliability with auto engines is related to the mentality of the builder using the engine. Because the engine installation is lower cost (CHEAP) it is treated as a cheap installation and in many cases components are used that are not suited to application in aircraft. Most failures relate to failure of the systems not the core engine which is the item that is being subjected to the high power. Technology has come a long way in this last decade, lets not be confused with someone's statement made ten or twenty years ago. Remember Lycosaurus also fail. Ivan Shaw (Europa aircraft) had his Continental O-200 fail on his second flight of his Vari-eze back in the early days of the Vari-eze design. It did a lot of damage. Years ago whilst I was a student, I had an O-200 fail at 400 AGL, climb out, in a C-150 on my first solo cross country . I have no love affair with Lycosaurus Yes my Subaru may fail, but don't kid yourselves about certified engines, they kill too. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Johnson Tel (613) 253 2229 (H) Ottawa, (613) 599 3289 ext. 441 or 232 Ontario, Cozy MKIV RG #30 Canada. Subaru EG33 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 22:05:05 +0200 From: Rego and Noleen Burger Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Most Auto Engines ( or all ) have their HP rating on the max RPM scale of things. In an Aeroplane this power would mostly be used for climb...in cruise one would use about 65% of that. So a 200Hp engine would only use about 130HP. This would offer very close to the 75% of a 180HP LYC. Besides most auto motors are slightly heavier so more HP will be required to get the same performance..just don't over do it! -- Rego Burger CZ4#139 South Africa Web:http://home.intekom.com/glen/rnb.htm Work e-mail, mailto:burgerr@telkom.co.za Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 16:28:33 +0000 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Larry, re "More cars are involved in accidents than are horses; therefore I should consider the horse as a better choice." 'suppose it depends on where you're going - a horse can take you where no car has been - but there's no guarantee it will not roll in the nearest watering hole if it has a mind to.... The decision to go with a Subaru engine seemed to beg a response of some sort - but maybe not - at least not one adding to the negative list. Certainly there are engines that 'might' be better than a Lycoming. But to reinvent a wheel while there are proven wheels (engines) off the shelf does not appeal to me. The #1 obsession I have is to get the MKIV flying as soon as possible and that precludes developing a car engine to do it. In fact, it precludes developing any engine ever. There are smarter people than me doing it (Deltahawk-Zoche) and I would prefer to use their expertise, just like I did buying the LEZ plan from Burt Rutan and the MKIV plan from Nat - rather than inventing my own airplane which surely would have failed. Just a different perspective, Larry. Nothing wrong with your's or mine, just different. There's an old dream among home builders of going to a junk yard and buying an engine for $1500 and sucessfully hanging it on an airplane. Perhaps you'll find a way to do it and I can't fault you for trying. It sure would make a lot of people happy if you succeeded. Incidently, if my recall of a book about the Wright Brothers serves me correctly, they did much research and reading on the subject of flying and engines, and one thing they did not do was waste their time trying things that had failed earlier. They built their own engine only because there was no other choice at the time. If there had been a Lycoming available, they would have used it for sure. dd MKIV #155 (hope to fly this summer) From: Jim Hocut Subject: COZY: Subaru SVX Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 16:45:02 -0500 I indicated earlier that a Velocity building friend of mine is using the SVX engine. Like I mentioned, he has fabricated the engine mount that was designed by himself and a retired Cessna structural engineer, currently has it running on a test stand, and has accumulated a ton of information on the engine. If anyone else would like to get in touch with him send me a private e-mail and I will forward his e-mail address. Now for a short personal editorial based on looking over Wayne's shoulder as he worked on the engine, and on occasion pitching in to help. If I ever harbored thoughts of using an auto engine conversion on my Cozy I've been cured by what I've seen. I'm enjoying the building process, but I certainly want it to end. Wayne has added at least one and probably two years to his project by going with this engine, but he's enjoying himself and to him the extra time doesn't matter. I believe his total cost for the engine, reduction drive, etc. will come in a little below what an aircraft engine would cost, but for myself not nearly enough to justify the huge investment in time to get everything right. It seems to me that considering an auto engine conversion for the $$$ savings is the wrong reason. You've just flat got to want to do it because you truly enjoy the challenge, have the mechanical and technical talent to be up to the task, and are willing to put in the extra time. Jim Hocut jhocut@mindspring.com Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 16:46:17 +0000 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Phil, re "I have no love affair with Lycosaurus" Sounds like all your bad luck was all with Continental not Lycosaurus. Is the Subaru EG33 installed and how is it performing? I do have a (slightly) open mind on the subject. dd From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 18:50:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Engine On 02/07/98 22:05:05 you wrote: > >Most Auto Engines ( or all ) have their HP rating on the max RPM scale >of things. In an Aeroplane this power would mostly be used for >climb...in cruise one would use about 65% of that. >So a 200Hp engine would only use about 130HP. This would offer very >close to the 75% of a 180HP LYC. Besides most auto motors are slightly >heavier so more HP will be required to get the same performance..just >don't over do it! >-- >Rego Burger >CZ4#139 South Africa >Web:http://home.intekom.com/glen/rnb.htm >Work e-mail, mailto:burgerr@telkom.co.za > > The rated HP rating in climb would require a variable (constant speed) prop to get RPM needed to generate that horsepower. Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 21:36:32 -0500 (EST) From: Nigel Field Subject: Re: COZY: Subaru SVX At 04:45 PM 2/7/98 -0500, Jim Hocut wrote: > It seems to me that considering an auto engine >conversion for the $$$ savings is the wrong reason. You've just flat >got to want to do it because you truly enjoy the challenge, have the >mechanical and technical talent to be up to the task, and are willing >to put in the extra time. > As a strong proponent of alternative power having built and flown one now for 4 years, I think Jim has summed it up very well here. It is indeed a project within itself however the results can be very rewarding. I will certainly never go back to a Lycont having tasted the sweet smoothness, lower drag, and higher efficiency of a liquid cooled power plant. But as Phil J. mentioned its the accessories that are the biggest challenge. Please note my new Email address brought on by regular engine failure of my former ISP using old technology. nfield@magma.ca Nigel Field Subaru powered (500 hrs and still uses no oil) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 10:16:21 -0500 From: "Johnson, Phillip" Subject: COZY: RE: Engine Jim Hocut writes: >Snip Now for a short personal editorial based on looking over Wayne's shoulder as he worked on the engine, and on occasion pitching in to help. If I ever harbored thoughts of using an auto engine conversion on my Cozy I've been cured by what I've seen. I'm enjoying the building process, but I certainly want it to end. Wayne has added at least one and probably two years to his project by going with this engine, but he's enjoying himself and to him the extra time doesn't matter. I believe his total cost for the engine, reduction drive, etc. will come in a little below what an aircraft engine would cost, but for myself not nearly enough to justify the huge investment in time to get everything right. It seems to me that considering an auto engine conversion for the $$$ savings is the wrong reason. You've just flat got to want to do it because you truly enjoy the challenge, have the mechanical and technical talent to be up to the task, and are willing to put in the extra time. < I think that you are absolutely correct, I am having a lot of fun and wouldn't do it a different way if I started again. On the cost issue, it is definitely less expensive providing you are capable of doing the work yourself. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Johnson Tel (613) 253 2229 (H) Ottawa, (613) 599 3289 ext. 441 or 232 Ontario, Cozy MKIV RG #30 Canada. Subaru EG33 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:34:03 +0200 From: Rego Burger Subject: Re: COZY: Engine :-) I THINK I WAS JUST SAYING IT DIFFERENTLY, I would expect that only 65% of the full power would be usable in cruise. ( to avoid overspeed ) Naturally a VP would make it mean, but a coarser F/P would absorb a lot of the energy to avoid overspeed. Rego Burger, web site: http://home.intekom.com/glen/rnb.htm (home e-mail) mailto:rnb@intekom.co.za >>> 8/February/1998 02:50am >>> wrote: >>The rated HP rating in climb would require a variable (constant speed) prop to get RPM needed to generate that horsepower.<< From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Mon, 09 Feb 98 09:54:53 -0600 Subject: Re[2]: COZY: Engine David, >'suppose it depends on where you're going - a horse can take you where >no car has been - but there's no guarantee it will not roll in the >nearest watering hole if it has a mind to.... I split a gut on that one..... Just recalling a trail ride with a girl frined some years back; her's did indeed roll in the "MUD". What a hoot! Had to hose them both. >snip >Just a different perspective, Larry. Nothing wrong with your's or >mine, just different. >snip Agree totally. What I am doing isn't for everyone. Neither is your approach. Our missions are obviously diferent. Nothing wrong with that. If this thing works; great. If it doesn't, then there will be that much more "specific" info available. And I intend to share freely; good bad or otherwise. >Incidently, if my recall of a book about the Wright Brothers serves me >correctly, they did much research and reading on the subject of flying >and engines, and one thing they did not do was waste their time trying >things that had failed earlier. They built their own engine only >because there was no other choice at the time. If there had been a >Lycoming available, they would have used it for sure. Musta read the same book you did. Same way I remember it. The only diference is that they were totally concentrating on "NEW" aircraft designs; I'm not. My plane is certainly experimental; however the basic design is 'supposedly' proven; at least the designer keeps implying that it is. Helps take the load off 'somewhat'. BTW: Thanks for raising the red flag. I'ts extreemely important that folks don't do things just because someone else does or doesn't do something. Each of us must weigh and decide issues based on all sorts of input; including our own comfort level. Larry Schuler lschuler@cellular.uscc.com From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Mon, 09 Feb 98 09:08:20 -0600 Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Michael Pollock wrote: >snip >I believe the Subaru engine can be made into an effective powerplant >for a Cozy, however, it MUST be changed from the original >configuration for proper torque and reliability. >snip Blanket statements are not of much value. Care to shed some light for the rest of us? What did you have in mind? What do you think needs 'changing'? Why? What were you including/excluding in your R/D estimate? >By the way, Dick Rutan suggested that we start out with a powerplant >that has a proven record (ie. Lycoming) and prove the airframe first. >If the airframe checks out, then prove the experimental engine. I >told him that the Velocity design was already proven. He basically >said that the airplane that he is looking at now has not even flown, >so how can it be proven. Two unknowns in the equation for the first >flight is not healthy. I was a little irritated when Dick made the >comment, but now I know he was right - he is still alive. :-) Very good point on the airframe, and exactly what I keep saying about the Cozy.... The one I (you) build is not the one that Nat built and each one MUST be tested and proven. Each one is an "experiment"; Period. As a result, each and every one of us is a test pilot; like it or not. Glad to hear that Dick has the same understanding. As for testing a new engine.... you are absolutely correct about a possible double whammy. This ain't for everyone and if done, must be approached with double-caution. All I can say is that I hope I do. For example, I will be spending much more (probably triple) time running up and down the runway on the ground than most folks do before I even consider a takeoff. Will this engine work for me? I DO NOT KNOW. It makes 'reasonably' good sense that it should. It is an experiment to see if it will. If it does, then others will certainly benefit; and, I intend to share the experience, the details, the good, the bad, and the ugly... free. I have absolutely no intention of benefiting from this experiment in any monitary way other than having a much less expensive (per hour) ride. In any case, there are a number of folks further along than me. I am at least 3 years from having an airframe ready; maybe more. Larry Schuler MK-IV plans #500 lschuler@cellular.uscc.com From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 16:41:08 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Engines (or any other major design deviaiton) Ed Boykin writes I thought I was being conservative by buying Stewart Warner Automotive instruments, they turned out to be junk! There is now a set of JPI slimline digital engine gauges that are excellent! I much prefer doing as much as possible work at home, then taking it to the airport and fly. It took 10 days at the airport to first flight, mainly weather, a stone damaged prop, and FAA wait for that time. 3 weeks to fly off the test time in early December Cleveland weather. Since then the only change has been the engine instruments, and major the engine. The first crosscontry flight (5 weeks after first flight was Cleveland to Sarasota, Florida, the day after Xmas. Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:01 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Pollock Subject: Re: COZY: Engine >Michael Pollock wrote: >snip >I believe the Subaru engine can be made into an effective powerplant >for a Cozy, however, it MUST be changed from the original >configuration for proper torque and reliability. >snip Then Larry Schuler wrote: >Blanket statements are not of much value. Care to shed some light for the rest >of us? What did you have in mind? What do you think needs 'changing'? Why? I am not going to get into how you should configure your engine for your aircraft. Any configuration, with proper thought for failure modes, etc. should be able to work. As Phillip Johnson stated in another E-Mail, "The real source of low reliability with auto engines is related to the mentality of the builder using the engine." If it were me using the 230 HP Subaru SVX engine for my homebuilt, I would first of all make it simple. 1. Remove the computer and replace the ignition with a direct ignition system (DIS) of some sort - Jeff Rose, LS Engineering, etc. The reason I would do this is because of the computer modes when it looses certain inputs. Certain sensor inputs into the computer, if lost for some reason, can cause the engine to go into a limp-home mode. I believe if the engine can run, then why does it have to run in a limp home mode. Removing any failure mode of this type, as far as I am concerned, is paramount. Simplicity rules when it comes to failure modes. 2. Lighten the load. Replace the intake manifold with a lighter one. Phillip Johnson has developed a lightweight carbon manifold that I believe will work perfectly. The weight of the stock manifold is too high. 3. Replace the electronic fuel injectors with manual fuel injectors. If the computer is removed, then something would have to be fabricated to run the electronic fuel injectors. I would just opt for manual injectors. 4. Match the torque of the engine to the prop. This can be done with the gear reduction selection and engine cam. I would use the same type of gear reduction that I was going to use on the SVX that we were going to use on our Velocity, but did not. I would not change the engine cam but would select a Lou Ross Planetary Gear 1.85:1 gear reduction to keep the speed of the small diameter propeller up in the high efficiency region. Lou Ross will argue with you on this because he thinks you should keep the prop speed low to minimize the noise and keep the pitch high because the higher torque to the prop shaft will turn the propeller with this higher pitch. I will not get into the gear reduction selection argument, but Phil Johnson and I both agree that 1.85:1 is the way to go for the SVX engine. Each of the things listed above open up a whole can of worms when trying to modify something to give ultimate reliability and longevity. Keep in mind, we were going to use the SVX engine on our Velocity. We actually had one running with a Ross 1.85 gear reduction. If it were just me on the Velocity project, and not a total of 4 people, I probably would have done just what I stated above, along with many other things that I would have to do because I changed from the stock engine. However, with three other people flying the plane, who will be going to CA or OR or WA from TX when something causes the engine not to work right. Only two of us out of the four people who built the Velocity could fix the engine. That was not acceptable. >What were you including/excluding in your R/D estimate? The high estimate that I quoted earlier was for someone to do the things I wanted to have done to the engine. I did not want to spend the time for R&D - I wanted to fly:-) Everyone has an opinion about auto conversions, well, now you have mine on the SVX;-) --- Michael.Pollock@mci.com Flying Velocity N173DT Building Cozy MKIV #643 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:04:00 -0500 From: "Johnson, Phillip" Subject: COZY: Re: Engine Mike Pollock Writes: snip> 1. Remove the computer and replace the ignition with a direct ignition system (DIS) of some sort - Jeff Rose, LS Engineering, etc. The reason I would do this is because of the computer modes when it looses certain inputs. Certain sensor inputs into the computer, if lost for some reason, can cause the engine to go into a limp-home mode. I believe if the engine can run, then why does it have to run in a limp home mode. Removing any failure mode of this type, as far as I am concerned, is paramount. Simplicity rules when it comes to failure modes. < For those auto conversion people out there, there is an alternative to the stock ECU found on modern engines. Compass Avionics Inc has recently come out with a dual redundant fuel injection/ignition system that will replace the stock ECU and will drive the electronic fuel injectors. Compass appears to have addressed the failure modes, incorporated dual microprocessors and dual sensors for the critical elements. The unit is less expensive than the Jeff Rose, LS Engineering, etc, or the Airflow fuel injection system so it seems a good buy at about $1000. The device is new and obviously needs evaluation and proof of reliability but has a lot of promise. Please, before anyone launches into augmentative discussion, I suggest they read the Compass web page at: http://www.northwest-aero.com/ go to engines and select: Compass Avionics redundant EFI/DI ECU. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Johnson Tel (613) 253 2229 (H) Ottawa, (613) 599 3289 ext. 441 or 232 Ontario, Cozy MKIV RG #30 Canada. Subaru EG33 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:29:31 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Mike Pollack wrote The likelyhood of successfully designing/building an intake manifold for an engine that is successful is slim to none. I saw from the inside of a Ford Engine plant where I worked, what went int designing the Duratec V-6, and converting the 5.0L to fit in the Explorer/Mountaineer. I sat in enough meetings, where dyno results were presented with what they thought would work and didn't. Its easy to say change the injectors, but trading what is probably SFI (sequential fuel injection) with fuel being delivered only when the intake valve is open, for constant flow, and then getting the spray pattern right is foolish. The SFI on my 96 Bronco 5.8L helps get 18MPG on the highway as compared to 13MPG for the 89 with the 5.8L. Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:52:45 -0600 From: Curt Smith Subject: COZY: Airwolf Remote Oil Filter I'm in the process of installing an Airwolf remote oil filter on my Long Ez, which has a similar engine bay as the Cozy. Anyone out there done this? And if so, what's the best location for the remote filter unit? I'm thinking about putting on the back of the spar outboard far enough that it doesn't interfere with the rudder cable. The only other place is high on the firewall, above the engine, but I'm concerned with dripping oil on all the stuff below when changing the filter. I'd really appreciate hearing from anyone who has experience with this set up. I've spent the winter overhauling the Long's 0-235, converting it to 125 hp in the process, so I'd be happy to pass along any helpful info on this latest learning experience. Should be running here in a week or two. Curt Smith Cozy III #113 (under construction) Long Ez N86CS ***************************************************************** Curtis A. Smith, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Educational Administration Program Director Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville Box 1125 Edwardsville, IL 62026-1125 Phone: 618/692-3970 Fax: 618/692-3359 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:08:03 -0500 (EST) From: Nigel Field Subject: Re: COZY: Engine At 09:04 AM 2/13/98 -0500, Phillip Johnson wrote: > >Please, before anyone launches into augmentative discussion, I suggest >they read the Compass web page at: > >http://www.northwest-aero.com/ go to engines and select: > >Compass Avionics redundant EFI/DI ECU. This is an exiting development for us alternative engine guys, but what Phil neglected to mention is that at this point the proposed system is still Vapourware. A Brassboard prototype has been fabricated and bench tested but no production model is yet available and will not be ready for some time. For Subaru EA-81, EJ-22 and EG-25 engines some design work has been done and some still remains to be done. There is no plan yet to fit one to an EG-33 but it should not be difficult. The system integration, fuel and ignition curve programming and flight test is planned to commence in May in my airplane for the EA-81 and my friends EG-25 fitted Long-eze. As with any new product there will no doubt be a number of refinements needed before it is really there. However it looks to be a good solution with redundancy to get around the car ECU with all of its problems for aircraft use. Nigel Field Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:08:06 -0500 (EST) From: Nigel Field Subject: Re: COZY: Engine At 05:29 PM 2/13/98 -0600, Carl Denk wrote: >Mike Pollack wrote >The likelyhood of successfully designing/building an intake manifold for an engine that is >successful is slim to none. I saw from the inside of a Ford Engine plant where I worked, what went >int designing the Duratec V-6, and converting the 5.0L to fit in the Explorer/Mountaineer. I sat in >enough meetings, where dyno results were presented with what they thought would work and didn't. > Sorry to burst your bubble Carl but there are plenty of guys flying homemade manifolds on Subaru engines, indeed a significant _majority_ use homemade intake manifolds. My airplane flies with a carbon fibre intake manifold that I designed and built 5 years ago and it works just fine thanks. The article on how to do it is on the web if anyone wants it. One of the great things about the Cozy list is the "can do" attitude of the members, all scratch build homebuilders. Don't ever accept "it can't be done" but ask, "how can it be done". Saw a P-51 for sale the other day Carl. Nigel Field Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:28:47 -0800 Subject: Re: COZY: Any auto conversions flying? From: alwick@juno.com (ok How) Along the same lines, I just installed my Subaru engine yesterday. FWIW it looks like you can install such an engine w/o any significant changes to aircraft. My engine mount plugs right into the lyc mounts, and looks like no engine cover mods needed. Even the oil fill, dipstick, fluid fill points same place as lyc! My total cost < $3000. If ground testing not satisfactory, I can pop in lyc. Me thinks that Ford V-6 was about the ugliest conversion ever. I know of VE's and LE's flying many hours with auto conversions. I also know of many problems they had to overcome. Your conclusions will determine which facts you hear ;-). -al wick 70% comp. Cozy MkIV with Subaru engine. Computerized cockpit. On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:34:44 -0600 "Nat Puffer" writes: >Dear Mario, >Merle Musson had a Ford V-6 installed in his Cozy III. He sold the >Cozy for >less that $10,000. The people who purchased it rebuilt it and >installed an >0-320 Lycoming and were advertising it for $45,000. Unfortunately in >test >flying it, they experienced fuel starvation and put it down in a muddy >field, where it flipped over and was totalled. >Larry Olson in Florida installed a Mazda 13B in his 4-place, but >performance was not satisfactory. I heard that he took it out and >installed >a Franklin. >In both of these cases, the money spent on the auto conversion appears >to >have been wasted, whereas money spent installing a Lycoming is a very >good >investment, because Lycoming engines get more valuable each year. In >1986 I >purchased a 0 time O-360 for $6,000, and today a rebuilt 0 time >Lycoming >costs about $12,000 without accessories, so the price has about >doubled in >12 years. During this same period, the price of gold has either >remained >the same, or gone down a little. Bottom line--Lycomings are more >valuable >than gold. >Regards, Nat > >---------- >> From: Mario Jorge Andrade >> To: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com >> Subject: COZY: Any auto conversions flying? >> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 8:07 PM >> >> Hello. >> is there any cozy already (and still...)flying with an >> automotive engine, apart from the venezuelan twin? >> And with jets or turboprop engines? >> And what about the Czech Walter Lom in line engines? >> I guess they're too heavy, aren't they? >> Thanks in advance. >> Mario Jorge Andrade >> Rio - Brazil >> > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 23:15:32 -0600 From: "Carlos V. Leon" Subject: COZY: Any auto conversions flying? >From Cozy twin builders: Anyone wanting to do an auto conversion must be well prepared for extended trial and error in months (maybe years) of testing. Also must be able to suffer general performance insatisfaction at the begining. You must also have a good knowledge of engines, engineering and easy access to a good machine shop. In the end it all might pay off. If you are not prepared to put up with the testing then install a Lycoming... Cost, about the same (when you take into account all the engineering and parts manufacturing and re-manufacturing needed in an auto conversion). With us (cozy twin) things are begining to pay off. We started with a 140 Kts, 500 feet/minute in the very beginning and now have 170 Kts, 1000 feet/minute airplane. We are still improving performance after 14 months of engineering, re-engineering and re-building. The conversion is not considered ready yet. The airframe is exellent, no problems whatsoever from the very begining. We did not change anything there. In any case, we are very very happy with our engine conversion and would never even consider retrofitting a Lycoming. Regards Carlos V. Leon COZY MK IV YV-22X Serial MK0307 Varieze YV-11X Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 08:55:05 +0200 From: Chris van Hoof Subject: COZY: Re:Subaru SVX Hi All, friend John Petrie, building a KIS4, is putting in a Subaru SVX. He's presently waiting for the mounting to arrive from the USA, and took the opportunity to weigh the motor and attachments. Motor 162.0Kg =357Lb (incl Ross PSRU) Attachments 35.0Kg = 77Lb(all the stuff taken off the motor) Prop 6.5Kg = 14Lb Excluded are the radiators, hoses and all fluids such as water & Oil. John can be contacted at :Petrie John & Gail pak04798@pixie.co.za if you need more info. Please share with the rest of us, if you do. Hope this is of some value for someone. chris #219, nearly out of Ch 09. From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: Re: COZY: Re:Subaru SVX Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:02:20 -0600 Chris, For your reference, the 0-360 A1A Lycoming weighs 290 lbs. with heavy starter and generator. With a light weight starter and alternator you can save about 15 lbs, which brings the weight down to 275 lbs. Thats kind of hard to beat for 180 hp. Regards, Nat ---------- > From: Chris van Hoof > To: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com > Subject: COZY: Re:Subaru SVX > Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 12:55 AM > > Hi All, > > friend John Petrie, building a KIS4, is putting in a Subaru SVX. > > He's presently waiting for the mounting to arrive from the USA, and took > the opportunity to weigh the motor and attachments. > > Motor 162.0Kg =357Lb (incl Ross PSRU) > Attachments 35.0Kg = 77Lb(all the stuff taken off the motor) > Prop 6.5Kg = 14Lb > > Excluded are the radiators, hoses and all fluids such as water & Oil. > > John can be contacted at :Petrie John & Gail pak04798@pixie.co.za > if you need more info. Please share with the rest of us, if you do. > > Hope this is of some value for someone. > > chris > #219, nearly out of Ch 09. > Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:22:27 +0200 From: Chris van Hoof Subject: COZY: Subaru SVX weights clarified Hi All, Thank you Nat for your input. Its more than likely i may go with the O-360. It is, however, my opinion that the next vast progress will be made in the aviation motor section, such will once again be made by the little man in his tinkershop. I do hope to be there to reap some benefit. So therefore i pass on all the info i can, to those that have the knowledge. Received some questions regarding the weights, so i'll try to clarify. Motor 162.0Kg =357Lb - this is the motor hanging with the Ross PSRU attached, the intake manifold removed, the exhaust manifold removed, the alternator is still attached on the original bracket, and thete are still 4 pulleys attached to a cast iron bracket, no belts, (John guesses the CI Bracket at almost 5 Kg= 11Lb) Attachments 35.0Kg = 77Lb - This is additional to the motor and is the Intake manifold, the exhaust manifold, the electronics, wires and the startermotor. Prop 6.5Kg = 14Lb - by itself - add to the above. Excluded are the radiators, hoses and all fluids such as water & Oil. It was noted/ or someone told John, that the intake and exhaust manifolds are reversible, that means that this motor should be usable in a tractor or pusher configuration. If more info is required, i'll gladly take pic's & dimensions if anyone wants. Chris #219 nearly out of Chapter 09 site at http://users.iafrica.com/c/cv/cvh Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:26:12 -0500 From: glenn murray Subject: COZY: Fly-wheel fitting HI there guys I've run into a couple of problems which I hope you can help me with. 1.The flywheel with my engine seems to have been forced on at some time over the wrong flange thus causing two other holes to be just as big as t= he one meant for the larger flange.One of the holes has a tine "o" opposite = it and seems to fit better than the rest.Is this the correct hole for the larger flange? and when the flywheel is fitted on this way would T.D.C. then line up wit= h the vertical crankcase join? 2. I'm building the Cozy Classic 3 Place which has the cabin heat ducting= = running alongside the left hand side of the fuselage.There seems very little room left for running the tube (5/8" dia) from the vac regulator up to the instrument panel to feed the A.H and D.I. Has anyone come up with a better solution?i.e would smaller tubing,say 1/4" be sufficient to run the two instruments? = Your help as always is appreciated Regards Glenn Murray = = Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:39:35 -0500 From: "Johnson, Phillip" Subject: Re: COZY: Re:Subaru SVX Nat Writes: Snip > For your reference, the 0-360 A1A Lycoming weighs 290 lbs. with heavy starter and generator. With a light weight starter and alternator you can save about 15 lbs., which brings the weight down to 275 lbs. That's kind of hard to beat for 180 hp. Regards, Nat End< The weight that I have see specified for the 0-360 was closer to 193 lbs. and this included only the alternator or the starter , not both (I can't remember which way around it was) going to the light weight units will reduce the weight back down to the 193 lbs. Now add all the peripheral and ancillary equipment such as prop extension, 2 gals of oil, oil coolers, remote filters, engine mounts, engine mounting rubbers, primers and lines, mixture controls, exhausts, baffling and associated pipe work, nuts and bolts etc the list goes on. My core SVX engine weighed in at 275 lbs. but by the time I added manifolds, exhausts, wiring, PSRU, mounts, oil,..... the whole firewall backwards package excluding radiator, coolant (estimated at 20 lbs. for the pair) and prop, came in at 390 lbs. A total of 410 lbs. with radiator & coolant. When I weighed the component parts, the weight was 20 lbs. lower because of rounding errors and all of the nuts, bolts and wiring. My guess is that the 0-360 installation weighs at least 360 lbs. on a like for like basis. Note: When I weighed my package I assembled everything and included even the nuts and bolts that secured the system to the firewall. Now consider that the Subaru is a highly fuel efficient engine burning less than 80% of the fuel of the Lyc at the same power setting. This means that the SVX version can do on 40 gals what the Lyc can do on 50 gals thereby achieving a weight saving of 60 lbs. of fuel. Now the two installations Lyc Vs Subaru are on an even footing except that the Subaru is a 230 hp engine with turbine smooth 6 cylinders through a 1.85:1 PRSU. Perhaps we should be comparing the Subaru SVX with the Franklin. Now in this match the auto conversion wins hand down on weight for the same power, and because the CofG is close to the firewall on the SVX no lead is required to offset the increased weight in the tail end, unlike the Franklin installation. In my opinion the argument against auto conversions based on weight is ill founded. There may be good reasons for objecting to auto conversions but weight would not seem to be one of them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Johnson Tel (613) 253 2229 (H) Ottawa, (613) 599 3280 ext. 441 or 232 Ontario, Cozy MKIV RG #30 Canada. Subaru EG33 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:45:33 -0500 From: "Johnson, Phillip" Subject: COZY: Re:Subaru SVX I wrote: snip > The weight that I have see specified for the 0-360 was closer to 193 lbs. and this included only the alternator or the starter , ...... end > I should have said: The weight that I have seen specified for the 0-360 was closer to 293 lbs. etc. I apologize for the confusion. 193 lbs. would make the Lyc a real performer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Johnson Tel (613) 253 2229 (H) Ottawa, (613) 599 3280 ext. 441 or 232 Ontario, Cozy MKIV RG #30 Canada. Subaru EG33 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Fred I. Mahan" Subject: Re: COZY: O-360 Weight (was:Re:Subaru SVX) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:29:42 -0500 Per the Lycoming O-360 Operator's Manual, O-360 standard dry weights weights vary from 282 lb for the -D1A, -D2A, and -D2B, to 301 lb for the -A4G, -A4J, and -A1G4. This includes, "carburetor, magnetos, spark plugs, ignition harness, intercylinder baffles, tachometer drive, starter and generator or alternator drive, starter and generator or alternator with mounting bracket. Fred in Florida Long-EZ N86LE Defiant project From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Wed, 11 Mar 98 14:52:34 -0600 Subject: Re[2]: COZY: Re:Subaru SVX Phillip Johnson wrote: >snip Darn nice of you to include everthing relative to CofG in your weight report. Hope I can do same when it comes time to report my "all-up" engine weight. Believe you missed a point on 'relative' weight: No need to carry as much oil either, since SVX engines don't use any. >snip >In my opinion the argument against auto conversions based on weight is >ill founded. There may be good reasons for objecting to auto >conversions but weight would not seem to be one of them. Couldn't agree more. Complete firewall-back weight and the actual CofG are the important issues in this regard; whether selecting an O-360, an IO-360, a Franklin, a wizbang V8, or whatever. As illustrated so many times in the past, "ACCURATE" engine weights are extrodinarily elusive and the reading of the scale is in the eye of the biased (the other eye always seems to be closed). Manufacturer's and proponents of the antique certified engines are notorious for reporting weights with between 50 and a 100 Lbs or so of stuff missing which is essential to their actual usefullness. Has anyone on this list actually weighed a Lycosaurus with "EVERYTHING" included from the firewall back? In other words, as the darn thing is installed and sitting in a plane (which is as it would be relative to CofG in the air) with all the nuts, bolts, carburators, manifolds, wires, clamps, exhaust stacks, prop extensions, electrical stuff, starting stuff, baffle stuff, heat muff, washers, magnetos, ad-nausium parts included? I get scared for folks who may listen to reports of meaningless weights that are impossible to translate to any useful information relative to true (complete) installations and true CofG because so much "stuff" is missing, not included, forgotten, intentionally left out or intentionally added in. Most info I've seen shows a weight which is biased toward the reporter's or marketer's singular goal [read: alterior motive], which usually isn't actual flight by the reporter. If we report our aircraft empty weight excluding most of the instruments and no seat cushions, one would think we could carry more payload; even though it would be both dangerous and uncomfortable to actually fly that way. I wonder what my "reported" empty weight would be without tires..... :-) Will the real firewall-rear weights please stand up and be counted.... Fire away. Larry Schuler MK-IV plans #500 lschuler@cellular.uscc.com From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Fri, 13 Mar 98 09:05:58 -0600 Subject: Re: COZY: Auto engines' TBO Mario Jorge Andrade wrote: >How can one determine an automotive engine conversion's TBO? Does any of the >most used (eg. Sub SVX) has a "known" TBO? Excellent question. Gotta remember the term "experimental". The experimenter will need to determine the TBO. Unfortunately, I don't believe many auto conversions, in general, have been around long enough other than some of the VW conversions to really get a good handle on the subject. This, coupled with the fact than none of the current conversion OEMs that I know of [other than Toyota] are chasing the certification rainbow, we end up with a real unknown. "Experimental" Just as with an O-360, as soon as a non-certified person works on it, it becomes non-certified and the manufacturer and FAA would no longer participate in estimates of a TBO. Experimental engines simply do not have a "known" TBO. Best you can do is make an educated guesstimate for your own installation. With current auto manufacturers stating 100,000 miles to first tune up, it seems logical that such an engine in an AC "might" be able to last at least that long before an "overhaul", let alone a simple tune up. An interesting item I learned recently is that auto manufacturers are now required by US law to 'guarantee' emission standards to at least 100,000 miles. That requires a darn good design and materials to begin with. Think of the oil and ash emissions that would happen if the rings start leaking. Good heavens! It just dawned on me: Think of the emissions from a brand new Lycoming with all that excess fuel used for cooling; by design! Just came up with another good reason (environmental) not to use an air cooled engine. I think one way to arrive at a 'reasonable' estimate might be by starting with the 100,000 mile number (not good if your engine was built prior to the mid-90's). Subtract whatever mileage may have been on it when you bought it, Then divide by 40 Mph to get a TBO SWAG (Scientific Wild A## Guess). The 40 Mph is a 'reasonable' average speed for a multipurpose vehicle. You can get more or less conservative or ambitious in your guesstimate from there. A brand new 1998 SVX with zero miles, for example, "might" yield 2500 hours TBO. Remember, the certified clan (Lyc and Cont) have had their original designs for well over 50 years now. They have one heck of a long track record of failures, failure modes, maintenance history, modifications, AD's, and much more. The only way to develop such a pedigree is by DOING IT! It takes time and much effort; but it certainly isn't impossible [the impossible just takes a bit longer]. Granted, the usage of an auto conversion would certainly be different than original intentions (except for Subaru, which I believe was originally designed for aircraft use). The torturous stop-n-go experienced by most autos seems to be generally considered harder on an engine than constant high power use. Couple this with considerably better maintenance received in an aircraft and you get the possibility of a "reasonable" TBO estimate. What's "reasonable"? Depends on who's weighing it. What's reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me. The only comparison available is the pedigree mentioned above. Can a particular auto conversion match or exceed the pedigree? Don't know. Ask again in 50 years. There are a number of various conversions flying; and, some are close to if not over 1,000 hours. It would be nice to hear from some of those folks, regardless of a specific engine used and time so far. [Don't be bashful Nigel.] Personally, I plan (for now) to be checking things like compression etc at annual inspections beginning at 500 hours; or, sooner if I have a reason to. Many certified engines have been known to operate quite well past their 'predicted' TBO. I would expect the same 'might' be true of an SVX that is "properly maintained". As was found by the folks using VW conversions (see the last couple issues of the EAA Experimenter), the conversion "MUST" be done properly to ensure reasonable longevity. Each engine and installation is different, and to assume otherwise is foolish indeed. Auto conversions are not for everyone; but neither is a scratch-built (plans) airplane. It takes a certain amount of desire and tenacity to spend the time and associated extra, head-scratching effort to do either; or, as in my case, BOTH. Larry Schuler MK-IV plans #500 lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:25:03 +0200 From: Rego Burger Subject: COZY: Auto engines' TBO In response, I think this is where or real "Experimental" part comes in. However don't despair.....you can estimate it within reason. Take a car that would drive at 140km/h on the open road. The average car would possibly start using oil at say 100-150000km so to err on the safe side we will work on the low number. This translates to 714 hrs. So I would start checking the compressions @ 650hrs if it was "zero" timed. @150k we look at 1071 hrs. So I would think to set it between 650-800hrs is a good target. Some cars with regular servicing have gone up to 200000km without problems. These are cars that have been exposed to open road high rpm and @ warm temps. They seem to last longer than the cold start stop town driven ones. One would think 70-80% constant power would have similar effects. The engine does not really know it's in an aeroplane! It could have been converted into an electric generator. However you must set yourself limits to match your own safety. Some ( auto-engines ) have been flying well over 500hrs without the need for major work. It's your experiment! Rego Burger, web site: http://home.intekom.com/glen/rnb.htm (home e-mail) mailto:rnb@intekom.co.za RSA Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:44:34 -0500 (EST) From: Nigel Field Subject: Re: COZY: Auto engines' TBO At 08:34 AM 3/13/98 -0300, Mario Jorge Andrade wrote: >Hi. >How can one determine an automotive engine conversion's TBO? >Does any of the most used (eg. Sub SVX) has a "known" TBO? >[]'s >Mario Jorge Andrade >Rio - Brazil > Mario, Its a difficult question as there are many variables and not a lot of data available yet. I will take a shot at identifying some of the variables. The major causes of wear are: piston speed, ring land contact area, thermal stability and material properties. There are many others also but these are the drivers. Piston speed on a typical short stroke auto engine at 5200 RPM is the same as a long stroke Lyc at 2600 RPM so they are even. Ring area is about 1/4 on an auto engine, so less cylinder wear. A liquid cooled engine has exceptional thermal stability once up to temperature so moving parts (like pistons) fit properly, and also they run much cooler so the lubricant won't break down into carbon and turn black especially around the valve guides. The cylinders on aluminum block engines are leaded steel liners alloyed for its low friction co-efficient as opposed to being structural steel. The bearings are loaded much less and will last almost forever if given clean cool lubricant, note that most bearing wear occurs right at start up before there is any oil pressure. Cars (engines) driven mostly on long distance trips at constant power last much longer up to 200,000 KM due to less start up thermal cycles, and so they will also in an airplane application. But auto engines come in many flavours, some better than others in quality. The Subaru line are as good as it gets in this regard. Unfortunately (for our trade deficit) a lot of the North American (Detroit and Windsor) iron is not as good in quality IMO (ducking for this one). My Subaru engine was a re-build from a run out car. The engine was in excellent condition with "as new" clearances, which is typical of these engines BTW. I lightly honed the bores to remove the shine, gave it new rings, bearings and seals and have since flown it for 510 hrs. I had the heads off last week and measured the bores at .001 to .002 oversize still well within spec. It uses no oil, the pressures are up, and it will no doubt make 1000 hrs or more. I have a spare also un run. So a properly converted and maintained auto engine should at least equal the TBO of any of the traditional aircooled aircraft engines, or about 10 years for the average guy. Then you can re-build it for a modest cost, or pitch it in the trash and get yourself another more modern one. The engines are not the challenge, its the accessories such as reduction units. In this regard the data is all over the map, but we are getting much better as more folks gain and share their experience. Nigel Field Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:05:50 -0600 Subject: COZY: Engine TBO From: mikefly@juno.com (Michael B Bowden) I operate a Cont. IO-520 in a C-206, flying pipeline patrol. I have been flying this airplane since almost new and it now has 7800 hrs. I am currently 900 hrs. into the 5th engine on this aircraft. The current engine is now using a quart of oil every 4 to 5 hrs. and has never really done better than that. None of the previous engines have gone all the way to 1700 hrs. TBO without some major repair to it. Usually some cylinder replacement at 1400 to 1500 hrs. I offer this as evidence that a TBO as stated by a manufacturer is only a recommendation. Charter and airline operators are obligated to overhaul at or before TBO. We are all obligated to repair or overhaul when an engine is found to be deficient We must constantly inspect for deficiencies, weather operating auto conversions or certified. Mike Bowden Two EZ MS1 N102ML _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:25:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Engine TBO The Lycoming IO-320-B1A in my Cosy (and its twin on the other side of a piper twin commanche) went 2000 hrs to 1st overhaul, and then I bought at total time 3855.7 hours, put 99.6 hours in the Cosy for a total on 2nd overhaul of 1955.7 hours on the 2nd overhaul. On the 3rd run there is now over 460 hours. Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:18:20 -0500 (EST) From: Nigel Field Subject: Re: COZY: Engine TBO At 10:25 PM 3/18/98 -0600, you wrote: >The Lycoming IO-320-B1A in my Cosy (and its twin on the other side of a piper twin commanche) went >2000 hrs to 1st overhaul, and then I bought at total time 3855.7 hours, put 99.6 hours in the Cosy >for a total on 2nd overhaul of 1955.7 hours on the 2nd overhaul. On the 3rd run there is now over >460 hours. > Carl how much maintenance was done on that engine in that period. I thought you reported a cracked jug just a while ago. My dad gave me an axe, its a great axe. It was my grandfather's who bought it new. He cut many trees with it then broke the handle so he got a new handle. My Dad hit a rock with it and broke the blade so he got a new blade. I split the handle so replaced it and then passed it on to my son who broke the blade, so we got a new blade. Ya know that axe still works great and its still in the family. Nigel Field Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 11:26:57 -0500 From: Chris Anderson Subject: COZY: lycoming parts In one of the newsletters, it was mentioned that Superior Air Parts was intending to offer a O-360 kit. I was wondering if anyone had heard recent info on crankcase and crankshaft availability, and if they had any intention of doing the IO-360 as well. Thanks =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Chris Anderson andersoc@idcnet.com You can't save everyone folks, just try not to be living next door when they go off... Dennis Miller From: wilhelmson@scra.org Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 13:14:50 -0400 Subject: Re: COZY: lycoming parts I heard that Superior Air Parts has filed for bankruptcy. True or false? WHY? Lawsuits? Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 12:47:42 -0500 From: Tom Brusehaver Subject: Re: COZY: lycoming parts >Reply-To: Chris Anderson > >In one of the newsletters, it was mentioned that Superior Air Parts was >intending to offer a O-360 kit. I was wondering if anyone had heard recent >info on crankcase and crankshaft availability, and if they had any >intention of doing the IO-360 as well. >Reply-To: wilhelmson@scra.org > > > I heard that Superior Air Parts has filed for bankruptcy. > True or false? WHY? Lawsuits? I thought it was in a recent newsletter, Superior filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. My guess is, they are running short of money trying to put the package together (business, product, growth). They do have a web site: http://www.superair.com From: "Fred I. Mahan" Subject: Re: COZY: lycoming parts Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 17:51:06 -0400 Jack Wilhelmson said: > I heard that Superior Air Parts has filed for bankruptcy. > True or false? True, but only Chapter 11. They are still manufacturing and shipping parts. I got an oil pump from them last year after they declared bankruptcy. > WHY? Lawsuits? Don't know that part. Fred in Florida Date: Tue, 7 Apr 98 8:29:02 EDT From: "Nick J Ugolini" Subject: Re: COZY: Lycoming parts Read an article about Superior last night. They are out of restructuring (bankruptcy) and apparently back stronger than ever.. They sold off the turbine part of the business. Supposed to lower the price of cyclinders, and certify their crankcase for the 360. There was no news on the crank.... Nick ------------- Original Text From: , on 4/6/98 1:14 PM: I heard that Superior Air Parts has filed for bankruptcy. True or false? WHY? Lawsuits? Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ * Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 15:21:06 -0500 From: Darren DeLoach Subject: COZY: Interesting engine... http://www.northwest-aero.com/ Saw a post about this on the Bearhawk mailing list... At 490 lbs, probably too large and heavy for a Cozy (except maybe Rick Roberts' King Kozy !) -- Darren DeLoach Sales & Software http://www.deloach.com From: "Steve Campbell" Subject: COZY: Engine Buying Time Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:17:49 It looks like this spring may be engine buying time. I have been looking at the Franklin with great interest and I recently ran across an ad in Sport Aviation for an outfit in Indiana called Franklin Parts and Service. They sell new Franklins at prices similar to Atlas, but will also sell uncertified engines for $8500. The engines are rebuilds of the older American made engines that have been majored to factory specs with noncertified valves and pistons. The rebuilder claims that the certified ones are hard to get and are much lower quality than the new noncertified ones. It sounds like a great deal if you take his claims at face value. Anybody deal with these folks before? Anybody know what questions I should ask regarding the parts? Thanks for any help, Steve ************************************************ Stephen A. Campbell, Professor, ECE University of Minnesota 200 Union Street Minneapolis 55455 (612) 625-5876 phone / (612) 625-4583 fax Campbell@ece.umn.edu ************************************************* From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 19:15:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Buying Time Steve Cambell writes I really question what the uncertified parts are. They could be factory rejects that made it to the black market, which I understand is rampant in the former Soviet block counties. I worked for 20 years in a Ford Motor Engine plant, and I know what sort of things can reject a good looking part for everything for bad metalurgy to microfinish. The bottom line is it costs considerable money and effort to tool up to produce say pistons. Everything from foundry patterns to fixtures to hold the odd shaped part for machining, to packing material in the plant to prevent part damage. I can't imagine anyone putting that effort into the low production quantities marketable. Therefor I believe they are bootleg parts. OK for an airboat (water type), but I wouldn't fly in it. Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 16:01:17 -0400 From: Eddie VANN <100740.3723@compuserve.com> Subject: COZY: Oil loss & Separator My Long-Ez has a Rolls-Royce built Continental O-240 engine which is a hybrid of 4 cylinders from an IO-360 mounted on a modified O-200 crankcase giving a nominal 130hp. It's great to fly. Thank you Bert. On take off, it emits a large quantity of oil smoke and I believe that the majority of the oil consumption is due to this. After considerable research and consultation, I have concluded that the acceleration of the take off causes oil to flow back in the sump, i.e. towards the prop where it flows up to the bevel gears driving the vacuum pump which whip it into foam which pushes out of the breather which is just above these gears. I have fitted a Wes Gardner oil-breather-into-the-exhaust system with no change. However, up to now this has no oil separator and I have bought the "Homebuilder's oil brether/separator" which I intend to fit in the hope that it will fix, or at least alleviate, the problem. Please can anyone(s) answer these questions:- 1) How can I re-contact Wes Gardner? 2) At what height on the firewall should I mount the separator? Does nose down parking affect this? 3) What form does the return line from the bottom of the separator to the sump take? Do I have to weld a fitting into the sump for this? Where? 4) When I was installing the engine, I spoke to Don Foreman who had built a Long-Ez with an O-240 and he said I should move the breather to the starter clutch cover plate for a reason I forget. (Was it to avoid the problem I have?) I tried this and it threw large quantities of oil over everything. Do any of you O-200 users have any comments? I will be grateful for any information input. It is annoying to be frequently told that I'm on fire after take off! Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 19:51:10 -0600 From: "Carlos V. Leon" Subject: COZY: valve question When the stem of a valve is eroded by corrosion, excessive heat or fatigue it will break off by its base where it joins the head. At this point the engine will "swallow" the valve head to the cylinder chamber doing obvious damage. This problem is common to abrasive fuels and lean mixtures or high EGT. When we had this problem in our Varieze YV-11X, it was due to an excesively lean mixture for extended periods of time. For some reason our O-320 used to run rough with anything but very lean operations. Regards Carlos V. Le=F3n COZY MK IV Twin YV-22X Varieze YV-11X gperry@usit.com wrote: > A few days ago, there were some posts about engines "swallowing" valves > and the horror stories that go with that event. For those of us (I hope I'm > not the only one) who are "engine illiterate", what exactly happens when an > engine "swallows" a valve? Is there any way to prevent this? > > Gregg Perry From: "Brown, Michael" Subject: RE: COZY: Oil loss & Separator Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:49:00 -0700 Eddie Vann wrote: I have bought the "Homebuilder's oil breather/separator" which I intend to fit in the hope that it will fix, or at least alleviate, the (oil loss) problem. Please can anyone(s) answer these questions:- 1) How can I re-contact Wes Gardner? 2) At what height on the firewall should I mount the separator? Does nose down parking affect this? 3) What form does the return line from the bottom of the separator to the sump take? Do I have to weld a fitting into the sump for this? Where? --------------------------- Eddie: Some comments on the Homebuilder's Oil Separator, since I installed one on my O-320 powered Cozy without much success: It does not seem to do anything about preventing oil from coming out the breather tube - I have an oily patch on the cowl next to the tube outlet just like everyone else. It takes up valuable space at the top of the firewall and complicates the hose routings. I decided to tap a fitting into the aluminum dipstick housing for the drain tube - again more hoses and routing issues. It fails the Burt Rutan gravity test miserably. Based on this experience (and others I've spoken to) I plan to remove the separator, plug the hole in the dipstick tube and go back to a simple hose vented from the breather port to the back of the cowl. One of the few things done since first flight which actually reduce empty weight! Mike Brown Redondo Beach, CA Cozy N97PZ michael.brown@alliedsignal.com From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 18:57:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: COZY: Oil loss & Separator Michael Brown writes Personally I wouldn't have one. If you any amount of oil coming out the breather tube, you have other problems that must be addressed, either engine inards, or breather location. My breather exits on the center of the wing trailing edge just outboard of the cowling. A piece of 5/8" O.D. aluminum tubing projects beyond the trailinf edge a little more than an inch, and the forward part bends, coming through the heat shield, anchored with a cushion clamp, whose screw is in line with the cowl fasteners, with the clamp facing inward. A piece of plastic (vinyl?) 5/8" I.D. tubing is routed from the engine to high near the firewall, and then to the aluminum tube. Although within the propeller arc, I never see any oil on the prop, but there is the usual exhaust smoke. I installed the installation sometime after the airframe was flying, and it wasn't that difficult. From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 08:27:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Question O-320-E2A?? >From my lycoming manuals: The O-320-E2A weight is 244 lbs, which is the lightest of the 320's. The E2A uses the low compression piston resulting in 150 hp instead of 160 hp. The pistons can be changed for about $1000 in parts. Also the E2A is setup for fixed pitch propeller. There is a recent AD requiring inspection of th nose bore of the crank for corrosion. Easily done, and should be required before buying/flying first time. The propeller bolts are also 3/8". 7/16" are better, and I think they can be changed easily. I don't think there will be a great difference in performance, probably less than 5% between the 150/160 HP. Could go to the higher compression at a later date or at major. I don't know why the weight is so much lower, I know the injected ones are heavier, but without looking at every part and accessory, who knows. Impulse coupling on one magneto is better since it will start easier, especially hand propping. Can someone that made the change to higher compression respond with actual performance numbers (not seat of the pants). The engine mount extrusions should be stainless steel, not aluminum. They are standard on the COSY CLASSIC and should be available from Wicks. Bottom line: I would take an E2A if the right condition/price was there. I would stay away from the dual magneto(one piece) like the plague. From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" Subject: RE: COZY: Question O-320-E2A?? Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:36:45 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com [SMTP:cdenk@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 3:54 PM > To: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu; cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com > Subject: Re: COZY: Question O-320-E2A?? > > The following is only my opinion and I hope that I do not offend > anyone, but here it is: > > First the good news: > > It seems that all the talk about engine mount extrusions has not taken > the consideration of the need for changing them to steel. Engine > mounts are designed to withstand dynamic shock loads due to hard > landings high g stress caused by wind shear etc. The power of the > engine pulling the airplane is negligible by comparison. It is normal > to assume a factor of ten times the engine weight for these loads.The > O320 E2a weighs about 10-15% more than the 0235. If the engine mounts > were adequate for the O235 then they would only need to be 15% > stronger for the 0320. I have analyzed several engine mounts and > found that the forces at the mount points are about .7 to .8 the > engine load. If we assume a 3000 lb (ten times the engine load) then > the tension or compression in the mounts is 2400 lbs. This translates > to a stress of 8000 psi. (using the original 1 x 1.5 x.125 2024T3 > aluminum angles.) 2024T3 has a yield point stress limit of 50,000 > psi. Therefore the safety factor is 6.25 even for a ten g load! > > To prove this point even further. My Cozy has a 0320 E2A with 160 HP > cylinders. It has 500hrs on it and the usual number of hard landings > and turbulence bumps. It also has aluminum angles (1.5 x 1.5 x .125 > 2024T3). I recently removed the engine and mount and inspected the > bolt holes and angles for damage, elongation and cracks. None were > found. > > And now the bad news: > > What we have here is a case of "ARM CHAIR ENGINEERING". (The Internet > is proving to be as efficient at spreading bad information as it is a > spreading good.) The experimental aircraft world has always had this > problem and managed to live with it, however, the increase in the > building of experimental along with the MONEY that goes along with > this. As a practicing engineer I feel obligated to my fellow builders > to warn them to be cautious about changes that on the surface seem > quite logical. At the very least they will add weight to your > airplane. At the worst they can cause very serious problems. Many > accessories and other items being sold for our airplanes lack formal > or even informal engineering analysis. > As the builder of the first the first Cozy from plans and the first to > use the 0320 it is apparent that I believe all builders have the right > to make whatever changes they feel qualified to make. This is much > different though than making unproven changes on the unqualified > advice or sales pitch of others. Recently we have had some minor > incidents caused by poorly engineered add on accessories. This trend > could eventually cause us all problems in the form of more Gov. > regulations etc. More builders means more chances that things will go > wrong and the "life style police" will move in. > > Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ From: David de Sosa Subject: COZY: Re: Cozy: Question 0-320-E2A?? Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:58:30 -0700 > -----Original Message----- > From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com [SMTP:cdenk@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 3:54 PM > To: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu; > cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com > Subject: Re: COZY: Question O-320-E2A?? > > The following is only my opinion and I hope that I do not offend > anyone, but here it is: > > First the good news: > > It seems that all the talk about engine mount extrusions has not > taken the consideration of the need for changing them to steel. Engine > mounts are designed to withstand dynamic shock loads due to hard > landings high g stress caused by wind shear etc. The power of the > engine pulling the airplane is negligible by comparison. It is normal > to assume a factor of ten times the engine weight for these loads.The > O320 E2a weighs about 10-15% more than the 0235. If the engine mounts > were adequate for the O235 then they would only need to be 15% > stronger for the 0320. I have analyzed several engine mounts and > found that the forces at the mount points are about .7 to .8 the > engine load. If we assume a 3000 lb (ten times the engine load) then > the tension or compression in the mounts is 2400 lbs. This translates > to a stress of 8000 psi. (using the original 1 x 1.5 x.125 2024T3 > aluminum angles.) 2024T3 has a yield point stress limit of 50,000 > psi. Therefore the safety factor is 6.25 even for a ten g load! Why are the aluminum hardpoints for the engine mounts referred to as 'aluminum angles'? They are flat rectangular plates are they not? To me, aluminum angles would be the right-angled brackets used on the Cosy 3-place at the rear of the fuselage where the wingspar comes out of the fuselage. David de Sosa Cozy MKIV #80 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 12:28:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Cozy: Question 0-320-E2A?? David De Sosa writes The Long-Eze, COzy 3, and COSY CLASSIC all use hot rolled or extruded angle shape, and not flat plate material, though locally the outstanding leg functions as a plate. You talk of stresses, what are these? Bending, Shear, Torsion, Shear Flow? What is you structure configuration (load points, material section?) There have been several reports of lighter (1" x 1" x 1/8" I think) aluminum angles cracking early on. Some people have went to longer angle leg lengths, or other material such as stainless. I prefer not aluminum due to fatigue issues if there is the slightest defect. From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 12:48:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Cozy: Question 0-320-E2A?? David De Sosa writes< 2024T3 yield point stress limit = 50,000 psi. >From My Alcoa handbook for 2024T3: Ultimate Strength = 64,000 psi. Yield Strength = 42,000 psi. Yield strength is the point where elastic (rubber band) deformation ceases, and inelastic (silly putty) deformation, which is permanent starts. Usually at a strain (stretching of around 0.3% ( for 10 inches .03" lengthening). Ultimate strength occurs after considerable more stretching (maybe 5 times), the crossection has reduced, strain hardening has occured, and if additional load is applied, the point of no return just like silly putty stretching with rapid failure. In Building Structural Design there are 2 methods, one is we design everything with real loads, and use reduced allowable stresses to account for factors of safety. The other applies factors to the loads, depending on the accuracy and likelyhood of maximum load, and factors to the material that are a function of the material and type of loading (tension, bending, shear, etc.). All the design criteria whether airplane or building is well known and published in appropriate handbooks and building codes. Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 08:22:00 -0700 Subject: COZY: Lyc engine warning From: alwick@juno.com (ok How) One of our fellow builders, not on the list, recently completed his first flights. Could have ended in fatality. He purchased his zero timed engine from guy who adverts in Cozy newsletter. I too gave the newsletter guy special consideration when looking for engine. Glad I didn't buy. I get this all second hand, but from very reliable source. Apparently in all the ground testing, kept having plug fouling. Changed plugs, injectors, etc. Engine builder recommended running it hard for hour, assuming that after 30 hours ground testing it was still not broken in. So he did at his 3rd hour of flight. Lost cylinder, was able to run it at idle speed and made the airport. Barely. Disassembled engine, sent failed parts to lab. They identified glass beads embedded in pistons. Speculate that during the engine rebuild process, the guy used wrong media and/ or wrong pressure. Beads apparently scored rings, damaged valves, other components.(I thought they used ground walnuts for engines). In hindsight, the grit noticed at first oil change was probably an indication. But he was told to expect some at first oil change. Reportedly he tried to get some help from engine rebuilder. Did not receive satisfactory response. Contacted Nat for some help with the push. Still can't get guy to refund (obviously doesn't trust guy to rebuild it again). He has finally resorted to having someone else rebuild it. $3500 so far in parts. I post this because buying an engine is major $$ and I don't want anyone killed. Supposedly there are 7 Cozy builders with engines from the same guy, not running yet. Proceed with great caution! When I first heard of this incident, long after it occurred, I was disturbed that there was no warning immediately posted. Don't understand how that can be rationalized. Lives are the priority. All else is trivial. Don't forget, this is second hand, includes words like "supposedly", "reportedly". I believe every word, but be critical. -al wick 77% comp. Cozy MkIV sn 389 with stock Subaru 2.5 engine. Computerized cockpit. Done building components, now have to sand, spend, sand. _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From: David de Sosa Subject: COZY: Engine: New combustible engine technology Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 11:19:27 -0700 Are any of you aware of or have seen the OX-2 engine prototype that is making the rounds with many of the major engine manufacturers in the U.S? This thing is pretty neat! The eight-cylinder OX-2 is a new design, weighing only 140 pounds, with only three moving parts. The engine has no valves, no crankshaft, produces no vacuum, yet is capable of surpassing the horsepower and torque of a conventional 350 cubic-inch V-8 engine. Check it out at: http://www.oxtwo.com Check out the list of investors and the stock history since January! David de Sosa Cozy MKIV #080 From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" Subject: COZY: Engine: New combustible engine technology Date: Thu, 28 May 98 13:56:37 EDT David DeSosa wrote: >The eight-cylinder OX-2 is a new design, weighing only 140 pounds, with >only three moving parts. The engine has no valves, no crankshaft, >produces no vacuum, yet is capable of surpassing the horsepower and >torque of a conventional 350 cubic-inch V-8 engine. So the company claims. They also claim a BSFC of 0.21 lb./hp./hr., or about 1/2 of what all current internal combustion engines can achieve. If, for the sake of argument (since there's no objective evidence that this 140 lb. engine can produce any more than the 40 HP that it's been able to do so far - all the other numbers are projections by their own admission) it can produce as much power as a 350 CI V8, the claim of halving the BSFC is still prima facie nonsense. The best BSFC that aircraft engines can do is around 0.40, while the best that's ever been done in an internal combustion engine is in the low to mid 0.3's. 0.21? Not likely with internal combustion technology, unless they've got some new form of magic. Claims such as these appear every few years - I'll be extremely skeptical until a 200 HP 140 lb. engine is verified to have a BSFC of anything less than 0.35. >Check out the list of investors and the stock history since January! According to Yahoo, the stock price has ranged between 1 and 29 in the past year, sitting at about 13 now. Given the technological unsophistication of most people, I wouldn't use the stock price as an indicator of technical capabilities. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com From: mbeduhn@juno.com Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 05:49:24 -0500 Subject: Re: COZY: Lyc engine warning On Thu, 28 May 1998 08:22:00 -0700 alwick@juno.com (ok How) writes: ... He purchased his zero timed engine from guy who adverts in Cozy newsletter. I too gave the newsletter guy special consideration when looking for engine. Glad I didn't buy. >>> >I get this all second hand, but from very reliable source. >>> I also bought an engine from this engine builder, and I heard this information from the same "reliable source". I can't comment on the experience of anyone else, but I have 120 hours on my engine, and have had only one problem. The fuel pump diaphram deleloped a leak. I called the rebuilder, told him about it, and he promply mailed me a new fuel pump. Again, I can only report on my own experience and I have been pleased with the engine and the service that I have received from the seller. Mark Beduhn Cozy IV N494CZ From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: Re: COZY: Lyc engine warning Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 10:30:44 -0500 Dear Al, I have been investigating the matter of the failed Lycoming. First of all, it wasn't a zero timed engine. The subject engines were advertised as having been assembled from used parts. The cost of each engine assembled was based upon the condition of the parts used, i.e., if the parts were well within service limits, the engines were estimated to be good for 1200 hours, and priced accordingly. The problems with the engine you have reported are as of now an unsolved mystery. Not all of the engines sold are flying yet, but many are, and this was the only occurence of its kind. Mark Beduhn has 120 hours on an identical engine, and is very satisfied. Bead blasting parts such as sumps is apparently an accepted practice in the aircraft engine overhaul business. My Lycoming has a used sump which had been bead blasted to clean it prior to my installing it. The quantity of beads removed from this engine appears to be far greater than could be explained by sloppy workmanship. It is hard to establish a case of sloppy workmanship if other engines from this same source have operated as advertised. So as of now, this is an unsolved mystery. I try to pass along any information I receive about the availability of used or rebuilt engines. It is always with the condition that the builder must do his own checking. This has turned out well in most cases (all other cases, as far as I know). When I first learned about this bad experience, I became very worried. My first reaction was to ask for the names of other Cozy builders who had purchased engines from this source. When I learned that Mark had purchased an identical engine, I called him immediately, and he told me he had 120 hours on his engine and was very satisfied. I understand that there are two other Cozy builders who have purchased these engines, but are not flying yet. I intend to recommend in the next newsletters that builders purchasing engines assembled from used parts run them on the ground for a few hours first, then change the oil and obtain an oil analysis to determine that there is no unusual silica or metals content. Regards, Nat > From: ok How > To: cozy_builders@canard.com > Subject: COZY: Lyc engine warning > Date: Thursday, May 28, 1998 10:22 AM > > One of our fellow builders, not on the list, recently completed his first > flights. Could have ended in fatality. He purchased his zero timed engine > from guy who adverts in Cozy newsletter. I too gave the newsletter guy > special consideration when looking for engine. Glad I didn't buy. > I get this all second hand, but from very reliable source. Apparently in > all the ground testing, kept having plug fouling. Changed plugs, > injectors, etc. Engine builder recommended running it hard for hour, > assuming that after 30 hours ground testing it was still not broken in. > So he did at his 3rd hour of flight. Lost cylinder, was able to run it at > idle speed and made the airport. Barely. > Disassembled engine, sent failed parts to lab. They identified glass > beads embedded in pistons. Speculate that during the engine rebuild > process, the guy used wrong media and/ or wrong pressure. Beads > apparently scored rings, damaged valves, other components.(I thought they > used ground walnuts for engines). In hindsight, the grit noticed at first > oil change was probably an indication. But he was told to expect some at > first oil change. > Reportedly he tried to get some help from engine rebuilder. Did not > receive satisfactory response. Contacted Nat for some help with the push. > Still can't get guy to refund (obviously doesn't trust guy to rebuild it > again). > He has finally resorted to having someone else rebuild it. $3500 so far > in parts. > I post this because buying an engine is major $$ and I don't want anyone > killed. Supposedly there are 7 Cozy builders with engines from the same > guy, not running yet. Proceed with great caution! > When I first heard of this incident, long after it occurred, I was > disturbed that there was no warning immediately posted. Don't understand > how that can be rationalized. Lives are the priority. All else is > trivial. > > Don't forget, this is second hand, includes words like "supposedly", > "reportedly". I believe every word, but be critical. > > -al wick > 77% comp. Cozy MkIV sn 389 with stock Subaru 2.5 engine. Computerized > cockpit. > Done building components, now have to sand, spend, sand. > > _____________________________________________________________________ > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com > Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 20:11:02 -0700 From: "B. W. Blackler" Subject: COZY: Lycoming O-360's G'Day I am presently 75% finished on a Long EZ and am interested in installing an O-360. I need to know the difference between the O-360A4A and A4M. I am looking for a solid crank version with slick mags. What engine should I be looking for? Regards Wayne Blackler AUSTRALIA From: "Fred I. Mahan" Subject: Re: COZY: Lycoming O-360's Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 06:15:49 -0400 Wayne -- Greg Travis has a web site with tons of Lycoming (and Continental) information: http://www.prime-mover.org/ Good luck! Fred in Florida Long-EZ N86LE Defiant project Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 07:35:07 -0700 From: Eric Westland Subject: COZY: Split a mag kit? I am looking for someone that wants to split a Slick mag kit (2 new mags plus a harness for each). The kits come with one impulse mag and one non-impulse mag. I am using Jeff Rose's electronic ignition, so I only need one, but you get the best buy if you buy a kit. If you are thinking of doing the same, then this could save us both a few hundred dollars on a new mag purchase, especially if you don't have a core. I spoke with Jeff about this last weekend and his mag can easily be used to start the engine and can go in either the left or right side. The slight advantage of having the impulse mag is that starting would be easier with it should the electronic unit quit. Other than that, it's just a matter of being sure you have the mag that's correct for your engine. If you are interested, please e-mail me privately. I can also send you an application chart as a pdf. file. -eric Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 07:40:30 -0700 From: Eric Westland Subject: Re: COZY: Lycoming O-360's Why a solid crank? Lycoming did not make many of these, so it really limits your selection in a tight market. As long as the bore checks out OK for corrosion, the hollow crank can be plugged for use with a fixed pitch prop for just a few dollars. Slick also makes several conversion kits for engines that come with Bendix mags, so if you are sold on the Slicks, then you may want to look into that. Now, I don't know if all of that will fly with the Australian authorities, but it may give you more options. -eric B. W. Blackler wrote: > G'Day > > I am presently 75% finished on a Long EZ and am interested in installing > an O-360. I need to know the difference between the O-360A4A and A4M. I > am looking for a solid crank version with slick mags. What engine should > I be looking for? Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 06:40:15 +0100 From: Jean-Jacques CLAUS Subject: COZY: Nitrided Cylinders Barrels on Lyc. engine Hello from France, I have the possibility to buy a lyc. O-360 with nitrited cylinders barrels (blue color). Does someone knows if nitrited cylinders barrels have advantages in relation to plain steel or chrome cylinders barrels ? If they exist, what are advantages of one in relation to the others ? Thanks for reply, Jean-Jacques CLAUS French Cosy Builder Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 06:26:27 +0100 From: Jean-Jacques CLAUS Subject: COZY: Renault Engine Hi all, Last year a fellow of this group asked me if i could obtain some informations about the new RENAULT aircraft engine. I called and sent fax to RENAULT,..., no way to have anything. Today i can send to the group a translated article from a french aviation magazine published last month. "New Morane-Renault motor March 3, 1998, a prototype of the 200 HP Morane Renault engine, gone up on a TB20 Trinidad, did its first flight. To this day, 8 prototypes of this diesel engine have been constructed. They underwent more of 300 hours of tests to soil. By this way the objectives of the program will be reached. This first flight lasted 50 minutes. " In Europe, jet-A fuel is 3 times less expensive than AV-GAS so the european market is really waiting diesel's engines. Happy building, Jean-Jacques CLAUS French Cosy Builder From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 13:19:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Nitrided Cylinders Barrels on Lyc. engine Jean writes< Nitrided cylinders> The nitrided cylinders are original Lycoming and usually go to the second overhaul. The chrome cylinders are the repair process for cylinders that are worn beyond service limits for bore diameter either due to wear or scoring. Either is good, if not worn. A small light bulb with a small mirror (glued to a piece of soft wire) inserted into the sparkplug (top and bottom) will show if there is scoring or rust, and any oil accumulation if recently run. Chrome cylinders should be bought with suspicion, there are many tired ones out there. Every time a cylinder is worked on by a certified repair station they will etch (electric pencil) on the part that slides into the crankcase the initials of the shop, work order number and date. I wouldn't except one with more than 2 initials on it. The issue is cracked cylinders and heads. Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 12:34:46 -0800 From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers) Subject: Re: COZY: Nitrided Cylinders Barrels on Lyc. engine >Does someone knows if nitrited cylinders barrels have advantages in >relation to plain steel or chrome cylinders barrels ? > >If they exist, what are advantages of one in relation to the others ? > >Thanks for reply, > > >Jean-Jacques CLAUS >French Cosy Builder Jean-Jacques, I used to do the QC inspections in a plant that re-barrelled cylinders. Nitriding is a process that heats the cylinder and exposes it to Nitrogen. It is not something you can do in your back yard. It hardens the metal near the surface, and is routinely done to cranks, as well. The object is to increase the wear-life. New cylinders are usually nitrided. It has nothing to do with dimensions. I know of no way to nitride the barrels with the heads on, so ask some questions. If they are truly nitrided, that means the barrels are new? If you seperate the head from the cylinder, you can't put it back. They are screwed together hot and cold, for a shrink-fit. THEN the cylinder base flange and bolt pattern is machined. If someone claims the cylinders have been nitrided without removal from the heads, I'd be suspicious. Also be sure, when you buy rings for these cylinders, that you get the correct ones to mate with a nitrided barrel. Rings are different materials, depending on what they will be running against (Chrome, for example). Hope this helps. Regards, Howard Rogers A&P 2005248 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:25:42 -0400 From: David Domeier Subject: COZY: Lycoming Specific Fuel Consumption Does anyone have the specific fuel consumption figures for the 0-360 A4M? I've had a chart on these specs for a number of engines but can't find it. Thanks. dd From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 20:49:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Lycoming Specific Fuel Consumption On 06/29/98 18:25:42 you wrote: > > Does anyone have the specific fuel consumption figures for the 0- 360 >A4M? > > I've had a chart on these specs for a number of engines but can't >find it. > > Thanks. > >dd > > > Get the 360 operators manual from Lycoming, also the repair manual and parts book. You should have these anyhow. Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 09:52:55 -0500 From: Ken Reiter Subject: COZY: Lycoming Engine roughness at ~1500RPM Hello Group, Got a question about my Lycoming O-320-E2A. At about 1450 rpm, I get a roughness while on the ground or in the air. At this rough rpm with the throttle set, the rpm will vary from 1400 to 1500. However, if I lean on the ground, about 2/3 way to idle cutoff it goes away. Also, if I lean at 800rpm the increase throttle there is no roughness. What I have tried so far: - removed air box results ( no change ) - replaced spark plug results ( no change ) - check compression results ( all 72-75 warm ) - checked idle mixture results ( set ok, made no difference ) - replaced carb results ( go better but still there ) Engine will idle down to 560rpm and runs great at higher rpm settings, your ideas are welcome. Thanks, Ken From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 15:48:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Lycoming Engine roughness at ~1500RPM 1: When stopping the engine with idle cut-off, moving the mixture slowly to cut-off, and a warm engine the RPM should increase atleast 50 RPM, but probably not more than 100 RPM. If it doesn't get 50 RPM, the cabureter or fuel injector mixture needs richer, if more than 100 RPM the mixture needs leaner. After this is done, it is not unusual to be able to smoothen operation with leaning. 2: Read the Lycoming operator's and repair manuals, everyone should have one. Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 17:10:09 -0700 From: Bruce McElhoe Subject: Re: COZY: Lycoming Engine roughness at ~1500RPM Ken Reiter wrote: >Got a question about my Lycoming O-320-E2A. > >At about 1450 rpm, I get a roughness while on the ground or in >the air. At this rough rpm with the throttle set, the rpm will >vary from 1400 to 1500. However, if I lean on the ground, about >2/3 way to idle cutoff it goes away. Also, if I lean at 800rpm the >increase throttle there is no roughness. > Ken... I have a similar problem on my O-235 that was recently discussed very thoroughly here last month, including an excellent explanation by Ben Ellison. In short, O-235's just do that. I don't know if this is common to the O-320 as well. Have a look at: http://www.sierra.net/skyranch/marvsh.htm for a good description of the M-S carburetor idle circuit. Bruce McElhoe Long-EZ N64MC Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 00:30:18 -0500 Subject: Re: COZY: Lycoming Engine roughness at ~1500RPM From: mikefly@juno.com (Michael B Bowden) >At about 1450 rpm, I get a roughness while on the ground or in >the air. Ken Have you checked for induction leaks? A year ago, I had a newly rebuilt IO-520 that had two cold cylinders(1&3) below 1500 RPM. Leaning smoothed slightly. Ran OK in the air except slight roughness at approach power settings. Eventually we found a plug missing from an intake runner on the opposite side. mbb _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From: "Michael Holm" Subject: COZY: Engin Oil Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:34:15 +0200 Hi All ! I have a question for the group ........ Can anyone give me an explanation on the difference on engin oil used for, aircraft versus engin oil for automobiles. Is it passably to use automobile engine oil for the Aircraft, I have a O-320 fore my Cosy and I can get Automobile oil much Cheaper. Best Regards Michael Holm Cosy Classic 10 Years building Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 11:28:05 -0700 From: "LCDR James D. Newman" Subject: COZY: Re: Engine Oil Hi Mike and All, > Michael Holm wrote: > I have a question for the group ........ Can anyone give me an explanation on the difference on engine oil used for, aircraft versus engine oil for automobiles. Is it passably to use automobile engine oil for the Aircraft, I have a O-320 fore my Cosy and I can get Automobile oil much Cheaper. NEVER use car oil in an aircraft (Lycoming, Continental, Franklin) engine. It's kinda too long of an explanation to post. If you gotta know all the reasons why not to, call. Infinity's Forever, JD From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 16:08:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Engin Oil Don't know the specific differences, but auto oil can (big percentage) cause sticking valves and other maladies. It has been heavyily document in such periodicals like TBO Advisor, and Light Plane Maintenance. I too would prefer using Auto Oil like Shell Rotella T, but don't. Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 22:06:18 -0700 From: michael amick Subject: Re: COZY: Engin Oil Michael Holm wrote: > > Is it passably to use automobile engine oil for the Aircraft...? NO! You cannot use auto oil if you use aviation gas. The big differrence is the by-products of aviation fuel (principaly Lead) unburned fuel & other combustion deposits are not kept in suspension with auto oil and create a terrible sludge. Do you remember all of the engines that The Mobile Oil Corporation had to replace some 10+ years ago when it marketed it's, then successful, 100% synthetic "Mobil-One" auto oil to the aviation community? Just about every one who used this oil for an extended period of time got an overhaul or prorated rebate from Mobile Corporation for the documented damage it did to their engines. If you use auto fuel "only", then I suspect you could use auto oil with no ill effects. But I defer to those more knowledgeable in this area. Michael Amick MKIV plans 317 Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 19:59:09 +0200 From: C van Hoof Subject: COZY: Motor - Subaru Hi all, Just a hot question from this neck of the woods. John, a KIS builder, is installing a Subaru SVX. The question that arises is:- how do you calculate the area required for the radiator, should one know the volume of water that the water pump pumps (which we don't). Even so, what should the temperature of the water be on entering the motor and what should it be on leaving the motor, on its merry way to the radiator. I understand that is the KIS is a tractor aircraft, but surely the problem remains the same for pusher types. Thanks in anticipation of your wisdom. Chris and John. PS during a discussion on this topic, someone mentioned a "swerl pot" is required, can you throw some light on this term, please. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 13:36:31 -0700 From: "LCDR James D. Newman" Subject: COZY: Re: Motor - Subaru Hi Chris, John and All, > The question that arises is: how do you calculate the area required for the radiator, should one know the volume of water that the water pump pumps (which we don't). Even so, what should the temperature of the water be on entering the motor and what should it be on leaving the motor, on its merry way to the radiator. > I understand that is the KISS is a tractor aircraft, but surely the problem remains the same for pusher types. > PS during a discussion on this topic, someone mentioned a "swirl pot" is required, can you throw some light on this term, please. http://www.si-inc.com/subaru ftp://Ftp.Pilgrimhouse.Com/pub/DropBox Check out these 2 sites. The answer should be there, or at least a contact where to find out. Infinity's Forever, JD Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 20:31:23 -0400 From: Bayard duPont Subject: COZY: Re: [canard-aviators] Motor - Subaru The most successful and least time consuming method to figure radiator displacement is to ask the aftermarket radiatir manufactuers, Griffin Racing radiators, or Rod Davis racing . I have the phone numbers at work If you want them. Bayard duPont, Defiant 431RA Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:39:07 -0400 From: "Johnson, Phillip" Subject: COZY: Radiators, cooling and swirl pots C van Hoof writes: snip> how do you calculate the area required for the radiator, should one know the volume of water that the water pump pumps (which we don't). Even so, what should the temperature of the water be on entering the motor and what should it be on leaving the motor, on its merry way to the radiator. end> A rule of thumb is 0ne square foot per 100hp however this is very rough since the thickness of the radiator and the airspeed, hence ram pressure, has to be considered. Use of a plenum sourced by a relatively small opening, prior to the radiator, will reduce cooling drag ( a figure of about 1:4 can be used here). Use a free flow radiator so that the air can move through it quickly. Standard automotive radiators have fin spacing very close together and cause too much back pressure. This prevents mass flow of air which is your cooling fluid. Increasing the spacing between the fins increases the flow and reduces drag. One of the most critical areas is in the seal around the radiator, a small leak will cause the high pressure air to flow around the radiator rather than through it thereby mitigating the cooling effect. At the end of the day you are at the Mercy of the after market radiator manufacturers such as Griffin. I have the same SVX engine as your friend is fitting to his KIS and my radiator will be approximately 2.5 to 3 square feet. Sorry I cant be of more help. snip> PS during a discussion on this topic, someone mentioned a "swerl pot" is required, can you throw some light on this term, please. end< The Swirl pot is a device that removes the entrapped air and water vapour prior to entry to the water pump or engine. It is necessary to: a) prevent cavitation at the pump thereby reducing pumping efficiency, and; b) prevent super heated steam entering the cooling jacket thereby reducing the heat transfer form the cylinder walls etc. How does it work? You take a cylindrical chamber, (I used a butane cylinder) and weld a pipe tangentially to the cylinder, this is the input, you then weld a second pipe tangentially to the same cylinder but lower than the first pipe. A space is provided above the upper pipe for stream/air to accumulate, and a pressure cap with an overflow pipe is attached to the space above the steam/air space. The water enters the chamber through the top tangential pipe, swirls around the cylinder and exits through the lower tangential pipe (note the lower tangential port should be configured to allow the exit coolant to pass with minimum disruption to the swirling direction). Centrifugal force causes the water to be thrown out towards the circumference thus forcing the lower density steam/air to the centre of the vortex. This column of steam/air drifts to the top of the container and collects in the space at the top and above the input port. As the system pressure rises, through thermal causes, the steam/air is released through the pressure cap into the bottom of a catchment bottle. When the engine cools a partial vacuum is created, this vacuum sucks the displaced coolant back to the main part of the cooling system. There are "poor man's" swirl pots that are simply a cylinder with an input and exit port diametrically positioned with a volume above and a pressure cap etc. These do not have the benefit of the centrifugal force to extract the low density fluids but they do work and are found on some low production sports cars such a TVR. Standard road cars do not need such a device because it is implicit in the radiator design. In this case the radiator header is used as the "poor man's swirl pot" described above. This works if this header is high with respect to the cylinder heads. Some people claim that they have been unable to cool auto conversions without this device whilst others have found no benefit. I think that in the latter case there is an implied swirl pot which allows the design to remove the low density fluids. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Johnson Tel (613) 253 2229 (H) Ottawa, (613) 599 3280 ext. 232 Ontario, Cozy MKIV RG #30 Canada. Subaru EG33 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 21:52:10 -0400 From: Ian Douglas Subject: COZY: Lycoming LIO-360-C1E6 Does anyone know if the LIO-360-C1E6 can be used in a pusher config? I a getting one of the engines off of my Seneca but need to know if the bearings will be OK with the thrust force going the opposite way. Is there a web site with this kind of info? -- Best regards, Ian D.S. Douglas Director of Technology Workplace Technologies Corporation If you write software, send me your resume! Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:38:33 -0500 Subject: COZY: Re: [canard-aviators] Lycoming LIO-360-C1E6 From: resiebert@juno.com (Reid E. Siebert) Looking at the F.A.A. Type Certificate Data Sheets for the various versions of the Lycoming IO-360, LIO-360, AIO-360, AEIO-360, HIO-360 and LHIO-360 engines, I find only the helicopter versions (HIO and LHIO) are not approved for both pusher and tractor mounting. Reid Siebert (Reid@Siebert.com) A&P mechanic On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:21:38 -0400 Ian Douglas writes: >[The Canard Aviators's Mailing list] >Does anyone know if the LIO-360-C1E6 can be used in a pusher config? >I am getting one of the engines off of my Seneca but need to know if the >bearings will be OK with the thrust force going the opposite way. Is >there a web site with this kind of info? _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 00:58:56 -0400 From: Dave Black Subject: COZY: Re: [canard-aviators] Lycoming LIO-360-C1E6 Ian Douglas wrote: > Does anyone know if the LIO-360-C1E6 can be used in a pusher config? I sure hope it can, As I have one mounted on my Velocity.Seriously, there are many Velocities flying with this very engine. I've never heard of any bearing problems. Dave Black Velocity RG From: SWrightFLY@aol.com Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 09:27:26 EDT Subject: COZY: Fwd: Lycoming IO-360-A3B6D From: SWrightFLY@aol.com Return-path: To: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com canard-aviators@canard.com Subject: Re:Lycoming IO-360-A3B6D Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 09:22:40 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Anyone have any information concerning any unique problems or advantages this engine may have for a pusher installation? What is a good price for one with 1691 Total time and a top overhall 100 hours ago. I could use Jeff Rose's elect. system and remove the long mag mount on the back. Steve Wright Wright Aircraft Works LLC From ???@??? Tue Jul 14 20:15:27 1998 Received: from twc2.betaweb.com ([206.43.209.18]) by antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n14767) with ESMTP id RAA00664 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:26:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA02292 for cozy_builders-list; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 16:59:46 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6]) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA02279; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 16:59:37 -0400 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA22424; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:55:14 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:55:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ely-oh5-34.ix.netcom.com(206.216.59.226) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma022361; Tue Jul 14 15:54:32 1998 To: resiebert@juno.com To: douglas@ibm.net Cc: cozy_builders@canard.com Cc: canard-aviators@canard.com Message-Id: <199871416523136334@> Subject: Re: COZY: Re: [canard-aviators] Lycoming LIO-360-C1E6 X-Mailer: NETCOMplete v3.25, from NETCOM On-Line Communications, Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cdenk@ix.netcom.com X-UIDL: 2b7539a14008e75c37d2c271d3259644 On 07/13/98 22:38:33 you wrote: > >Looking at the F.A.A. Type Certificate Data Sheets for the various >versions of the Lycoming IO-360, LIO-360, AIO-360, AEIO-360, HIO-360 and >LHIO-360 engines, I find only the helicopter versions (HIO and LHIO) are >not approved for both pusher and tractor mounting. > >Reid Siebert (Reid@Siebert.com) >A&P mechanic > > >On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:21:38 -0400 Ian Douglas writes: >>[The Canard Aviators's Mailing list] >>Does anyone know if the LIO-360-C1E6 can be used in a pusher config? >>I am getting one of the engines off of my Seneca but need to know if the >>bearings will be OK with the thrust force going the opposite way. Is >>there a web site with this kind of info? > >_____________________________________________________________________ >You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. >Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com >Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > > Lycoming publishes a list of certified engine applications. With the parts manual you could identify the exact differences. I think you will find there is very little differences, between them, which means they will probably all do the same job. BUT need to check to be sure. If overhauling then the few parts different (if) could be changed. Both publications are available at nominal cost. Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:14:53 -0700 From: Eric Westland Subject: Re: COZY: Fwd: Lycoming IO-360-A3B6D SWrightFLY@aol.com wrote: Anyone have any information concerning any unique problems or advantages this > engine may have for a pusher installation? I have the IO-360-A1A and there is some "extra" work to do for the angle-valve engine. First, you will need to modify the lower cowl because the sump is lower and the tubes for the tuned intake come straight down, then head horizontally to the sump. These won't fit in the standard cowl. You'll also need to relocate the fuel injection distributor (spider) to somewhere on the cool side of the baffling and reroute the lines. You'll need a high pressure boost pump in place of the Facet one (Airflow performance makes one for about $250) and while the baffling templates in the plans give you a good start, you need to make your own baffles. Be sure you install a high pressure engine driven fuel pump when the time comes. None of these changes were major for me, there are some positive advantages to this series of engines that offset the extra work. > What is a good price for one with > 1691 Total time and a top overhall 100 hours ago. I used core price plus $5/hour left to TBO as a basis for negotiation a couple of years ago. > I could use Jeff Rose's > elect. system and remove the long mag mount on the back. That's a good solution to the single mag issue. I was told when looking at one of these engines that the core value of the single mag is significant, but I can't remember how much. Eric Westland From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:05:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Fwd: Lycoming IO-360-A3B6D According to the Lycoming offical bible 1: Has 6th and 8 th order counterweights - don't know what effect this has, but probably to tune crank balance to a particular prop. 2: Bendix D4LN-3000 magneto - friend's Mooney has this, its not an issue for him. 3: Prop bushing on crank clocked 120 degrees - shouldn't be an issue. From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:13:51 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Lycoming LIO-360-C1E6 I can't find this model, but C1E6 has the following: 1: Prop Governor located on front of crank 2: 6th and 8 th order counterweights- probably fine tuning crank balance for a particular prop, need to check out. 3: 14 degree injector adapter - don't know about this one 4: one Impulse magneto - good. The "L" is opposite rotation - when facing prop, right blade goes down. - THis requires an oddball prop (like a left hand pitch screw thread, hard to find). You can order them, but try to borrow one if you damage yours, I think you will be S... out of luck. Probably the only part to buy if you tear down the engine, would be a cam, and maybe the mags. I wouldn't use this one. Can't you get the other side engine?? From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:19:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Fwd: Lycoming IO-360-A3B6D Westand writes I don't know if airflow has changed their pump, but 5 years ago, it was big and heavy. I use the Weldon certified pump, and it was much smaller and easier to mount. Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 06:01:11 -0400 From: "Jeff S. Russell (http://www.AeroCad.com)" Subject: COZY: Re: [canard-aviators] Lycoming LIO-360-C1E6 Ian Douglas wrote: > > [The Canard Aviators's Mailing list] > Does anyone know if the LIO-360-C1E6 can be used in a pusher config? I > a getting one of the engines off of my Seneca but need to know if the > bearings will be OK with the thrust force going the opposite way. Is > there a web site with this kind of info? That's the engine that we used on the Aerocanard. -- Jeff Russell/AeroCad Inc. E-mail: Jeff@aerocad.com P.O. Box 7307 Port St. Lucie FL. 34985 2954 Aviation Way Ft. Pierce, FL. 34946 Shop# 561-460-8020 7:00am to 3:30pm Home# 561-337-1579 Composite workshop info: http://www.Sportair.com Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:10:04 -0400 From: Bayard duPont Subject: COZY: Re: [canard-aviators] Radiators, cooling and swirl pots I have about 200 hours on my Fords in the Defiant , it took us some time to get to the bottom of the water systems, but we did. You need a radiator core with open core so the air will pass through it easily, with out dammed up. Swerl pots anr not necessary but you do need a way to bleed off the air in the system. Cooling systems work in two ways, In the old days, you filled up your dar radiator, went driving, and when the water got hot andwxpanded, it blew some overboard, creating an air space in the top of your radiator. This acted as an expacion chamber and bledoff the air. Now, because cars run with water temp above 212 degrees, they have to run higher pressures. They now use an overflow tank. When you start your car, the water heatsup and when the pressure reaches the cap pressure, it blows water in to the overflow tank. They when you shut it off, and it cools, it sucks the water back into the radiatoR. The radiator is always running completely full of water, and the pressure is always cap pressure. One of the neat ways to run aircraft is with an expancion tank. In this case, before yor start up, the radiator sysstem is full, but the expancion tank is empty. When you start up and the water gets hot it flows into the expancion tank from the bottom and compresses the air. This is like an accumulator. When you shut down , the air bubble forces the air back into the radiator system. I take my water pressure gauge pock off from the air bubble which gives you a really good indication of what is going on. You can get the engiine to run lower pressures by having a larger expansion tan. I use about a quart of air to a gallon of water and usually run 180 or 190 degrees at 6 or 8 lbs pressure. The expansin tank DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AT THE TOP OF THE SYSTEM!. Mine are in the cowling and on the firewall at the bottom of the system. The hose to the expansion tank only has to be 3/8 hose or so. It works better if the port for the expansion tank is at the top such as the out flow form the thermoastat because this will help bleed off the air. And the hose going into the expanison tank MUST be into the bottom of the expansin tank so it stays covered with water when in use. If you want to talk, you can get me a t New Garden Aviation ,610-268-2048. If you want to find me at Oshkosh, I will be working most of the week in the Enstrom Helicopter booth in the outside display area. Bayard duPont, Ford Defiant Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 22:31:44 -0600 From: Carlos Leon Subject: COZY: Twin Cozy IV Update: For those insterested in our twin auto conversion, we are sorry we could not make it to Oshkosh this year. At the moment our Cozy is down for modifications in the engine package. For a while we had been having problems with resonant vibrations in the engines. We were flying safely but we kept having broken brackets, bolts and excesive bearing wear. This was due to a design error we made at the begining by bolting both engines rigidly together and to the center axis. This causes vibration to be passed from one engine to the other achieving disastrous resonance. The works we are doing now include building in rubber brackets to attach the engines together. We built a spindle housing for the bearings and held this with rubber separators. This will assure aligness of the bearings and independence of the center axis in relation to the engines. We took the oportunity to increase the reduction from 2:1 to 2.25:1 expecting to get a maximun of 5000 rpm (the engine can go up to 6200 rpm) with the propellers going at 2,200rpm. Also we are installing a hydraulic belt tensioner to be able to remove belt tension in case of an engine failure. This will ensure engine disconnection from the propeller and reduce drag. Please don't think we want to give up or go back to Lycoming! Our main hobbie is perfecting our engine package more than actually flying. But I want to say that anyone considering an auto engine conversion must know that it takes a lot of time and expense to achieve something near a Lycoming. It is very interesting but I assure you it is not cheapear or more reliable. If doing the conversion is your main hobbie then fine but if you want to fly soon and reliably then it is better to choose a Lycoming. We built our plane 100% to the plans in two years and apart from correcting the canard incidende the airframe has performed flawlessly in our 120 hours flown. We estimate that it will take 2-3 years in total just to perfect our engine installation. Good luck and regards Carlos V. León Ruben D. León Twin COZY MKIV YV-22X Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:10:39 -0400 From: Ian Douglas Subject: COZY: Re: LIO-360-C1E6 > Did you ever get an answer to your question? Yes. Thanks to all who responded about the LIO-360 C1E6. I'm happy to know there are a number flying in a pusher config. My inspector said that I had to be sure that the bearings would allow the engine to be used in the new config. before he would sign off the plane. -- Best regards, Ian D.S. Douglas Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 18:02:39 -0700 Subject: COZY: Lyc engine failure. From: alwick@juno.com (ok How) Couple months ago I posted info regarding Lyc engine failure at 30 hours after rebuild. Since then, the engine has been rebuilt by a different party. Reportedly there were many discrepancies found. I learned this all from the Cozy builder. All but one of the valves failed magnaflux.... cracks. One crank bearing had out of tolerance interference fit --- .004 I was told. Some of the rings had appx. 1/2" gap (explains the gross oil fouling). Engine was purchased from rebuilder who advertises in Cozy newsletter. Reportedly he refuses to compensate builder for losses. This is all info supplied by Cozy builder who was able to dead stick into airport. My purpose in posting this is to save a life. Please use caution. -al wick 83% comp. Cozy MkIV sn 389 with stock Subaru 2.5 engine. Computerized cockpit. Done building components, now installing winglets. Expect completion date 4-30-99. _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 09:59:52 -0500 (EST) From: Ermilo Coello Subject: COZY: Renault Engine As you must to know Renault has a Engine production plant in Mexico, I have asked them for information about the Renault Aircraft engine. I have a internal Renault Magazine copy with a 2 pages article in French of curse. If any of you want a copy, let me know. Regards Ermilo Coello From: "Steve Campbell" Subject: RE: COZY: Franklin engine Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:28:16 The 220 HP Franklin, which Atlas was selling last year for 12 k$, is now being sold by a new company based in Austin called New Aviation, for 16 k$. Atlas may still be in business, I haven't checked. These prices are for the basic engine. Accessories will add about another 3 k$. On the positive side, Velocity is now encouraging their builders to use the Franklin. I ran into on Velocity builder that has been using an Ivo/Franklin combination for ~60 hours and has not seen any problems, aside from excessive bushing wear on the Ivo. Steve Steve Campbell Professor, ECE University of Minnesota 200 Union Street Minneapolis 55455 Campbell@ece.umn.edu (612) 625-5876 (612) 625-4583 (fax) From: "Van Halen" Subject: COZY: Rear sump Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:01:42 -0500 Just checking to see if anyone has an idea that might help. About six months ago i purchase a lycoming 0360-a4g engine that came off of a storm damaged beechcraft at a real good price. The bad news is this engine has a rear sump (the carb mounts on the rear of the engine) I was planning on using this carb if there was enough room. There is only 1 inch of clearence between it and the firewall so that idea is out. It was recommend that i purchase a bottom sump. I checked and a used bottom sump will cost between $400.00 and $450.00. The other choice would be to convert the engine to fuel injection. One last thought is to put a 45 degree elbow between the engine and the carb that i have. This would give enough clearence to mount a air filter box on the carb and duct ram air from the bottom of the naca air scoop. The question is how would this affect the fuel air mixture leaving the carb. Any feedback would be helpful. Tim Kilgore jkl@sonet.net Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:34:18 -0400 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Rear sump Tim, re "Just checking to see if anyone has an idea that might help." If you do switch to a bottom air intake, the carb still won't fit with the plan cowling. My Ellison intake hosing already touches the cowling. I would think the Ellison would fit just fine with the aft intake. It doesn't care how it is mounted. It isn't less money but it probably would work well. ss From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 07:31:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Rear sump On 08/19/98 22:34:18 you wrote: > >Tim, > > re "Just checking to see if anyone has an idea that might help." > > If you do switch to a bottom air intake, the carb still won't fit >with the plan cowling. My Ellison intake hosing already touches the >cowling. I would think the Ellison would fit just fine with the aft >intake. It doesn't care how it is mounted. > > It isn't less money but it probably would work well. > >ss > > > With the IO-320-B1A, I had to make my own bottom cowling eliminating the NACA scoop. I prefer the certified Bendix injector. At OSH I heard Dave Haggard discussing problems with the Airborne, and though there are many ellisons out there, there have been some problems. At least with the Bendix if there are problems, someone at the airport will be familar, or find a quick replacement. Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 08:56:59 -0400 From: Paul Krasa Subject: Re: COZY: Rear sump One last thought is to put a 45 >degree elbow between the engine and the carb that i have. > Check with Velocity. They make a 90 degree elbow for this purpose. From: Epplin John A Subject: COZY: Engine options Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 13:08:16 -0500 I have purchased a newly rebuilt Lycoming O-360 A1A. This engine is configured for a hydraulic constant speed prop. I do not intend to use such, at least in the beginning. However, I do not want to close the door on this option. Having no recent experience with small piston engines, I need some info and advice. As I understand the conversion consists of removing the governor drive adapter and capping the pad with a plate and gasket, which I have, and removing the hose to the front of the case and plugging the fitting with a pipe plug. This is straight forward, no problem with this. Then there is the plug that is installed in the crankshaft, aft of the front bearing. I understand this should have a small hole punched in it, using a small piercing punch or similar tool. This I can do easily enough. Then install a plug in the drive end of the shaft using a suitable sealant such as red Lock-tite. So far, no problem, BUT what if a constant speed prop comes along? Can the plug that has been punched be removed and replaced without removing the crankshaft? There is a tube inserted in the crank that may be a problem. It appears that the plug in question can be removed around it and a new one installed. I would like someone that has done that to confirm that it can be done and let me know if special tools are needed. Thanks for any advice and assistance. John epplin Mk4 #467 Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 15:06:35 -0400 From: "Jeff S. Russell (http://www.AeroCad.com)" Subject: Re: COZY: Engine options Epplin John A wrote: > I would like someone that has done that to confirm > that it can be done and let me know if special tools are needed. John, I helped a hanger mate do this on a IO-540 that was set up for a fixed prop. Then he installed a C.S. prop. It we no big deal going back the other way. -- Jeff Russell/AeroCad Inc. E-mail: Jeff@aerocad.com P.O. Box 7307 Port St. Lucie FL. 34985 2954 Aviation Way Ft. Pierce, FL. 34946 Shop# 561-460-8020 7:00am to 3:30pm Home# 561-337-1579 Composite workshop info: http://www.Sportair.com Subject: Re: COZY: Engine options From: mikefly@juno.com (Michael B Bowden) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 17:10:35 EDT On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 13:08:16 -0500 Epplin John A writes: >I have purchased a newly rebuilt Lycoming O-360 A1A. This engine is >configured for a hydraulic constant speed prop. I do not intend to >use >such, at least in the beginning. However, I do not want to close the >door >on this option. Having no recent experience with small piston >engines, I >need some info and advice. John As I remember, having been witness to this process a couple of times, the crankshaft plug you are referring to is installed when removing a constant speed prop. The plug is a slightly spherical shape that you flatten with an appropriate sized rod hit with a hammer. When flattened in such a manor, the plug diameter increases and lodges itself inside the crankshaft bore. To remove it, you strike the center of the plug with a small diameter punch such that the center of the plug bends further inward thus decreasing the diameter for easy removal. You may need to punch a hole in the plug so that a wedge (srew driver) can be inserted to help extract the plug from the crank shaft. mbb _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 17:38:16 -0700 From: Eric Westland Subject: Re: COZY: Engine options Epplin John A wrote: > > So far, no problem, BUT what if a constant speed prop comes > along? Can the plug that has been punched be removed and replaced without > removing the crankshaft? There is a tube inserted in the crank that may be > a problem. It appears that the plug in question can be removed around it > and a new one installed. John, On mine, the REAR plug at the back of the crankshaft bore is the one you are wondering about is similar. I had the same concern. On my rear crank plug, there is a allen-head set screw that is present for constant speed and removed for fixed pitch. Unfortunately for me, this set screw was frozen in place forever. So, I called Lycoming and they told me to drill a small hole or two adjacent to the set screw so the oil could return. They also told me that if I ever wanted to "plug it back up", the crank would have to go back to Lycoming for the replacement of the part I drilled. Now, yours seems slightly different and more common, but I doubt if the plug could be maneuvered around the cross tube that you mention and the only way to temporarily move it is to remove the crank. This is my understanding of the matter. BTW, I never did drill it out. For now I replaced the gov. oil line so the oil has a return route. While Lycoming did not volunteer this solution, they said it would be just fine when I called them later. When overhaul time comes, I'll get the set screw removed when I don't have to worry about where metal chips go. -eric From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:13:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: COZY: Engine options - Converting to variable pitch prop. Just to make sure everyone understands: There are 2 (TWO) welsh plugs (a convex steel disc, when struck at its center, flattens and the diameter gets slightly larger filling the gap to the bore of thre crankshaft) that are in question. The outermost is the easy one, and AFTER making a oil drain hole (with a sharp awl or punch and hammer) in the inner welsh plug, the outer welsh plug is installed, allowing a fixed pitch prop to be installed. The outer plug is easily removed (by making it convex with a hammer and 1/4" diameter punch) or an new one installed. Between the 2 welsh plugs is a thin walled oil tube about 1/4" diameter, that runs across the crankshaft bore. This tube must not be damaged! Once the inner welsh plug has a hole in it, I wouldn't plug it with a threaded fastener for 2 reasons: 1 cutting threads makes chips - can't assure that there are no chips getting to a bearing area, and can't assure the fastener won't loosen. To remove the inner welsh plug, would require deforming it to allow the diameter to decrease. This theoreticaly could be done by striking the center (the tube is in the way, and if the punch slips!), or could drill a hole, a long self tapping screw and PULL (chips again). Then once loose, the plug must be deformed enough to snake it around the tube. Lots and Lots of luck! Once the inner welsh plug is removed, I doubt there is space to get the new plug around the tube. This is a very difficult procedure, and suggest a trial run in a crank that is not installed,since the stakes are very high, both money wise, and down time. This is the reason Lycoming does the operation, I'm not sure even a repair station can replace the tube. Re: Installing a drain tube at the normal to governor tube port. There is an AD on most Lycoming engines for this tube, comply with it. From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 14:09:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: COZY: Engine options - Converting to variable pitch prop. On 09/02/98 11:18:11 you wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com [SMTP:cdenk@ix.netcom.com] > [Epplin John A] >> Re: Installing a drain tube at the normal to governor tube port. There is >> an AD on most Lycoming >> engines for this tube, comply with it. > [Epplin John A] > > I assume you are referring to AD 90-04-06 R1 concerning the external >oil line and fittings. Basically this AD requires replacing aluminum >fittings with steel fittings and also allows replacement of the line with a >fire resistant hose assembly. I am considering using this line, complying >with the AD, and returning it to the engine case. This will allow the rear >plug to remain intact. Anybody see a problem with that approach? > > John Epplin Mk4 #467 > > Probably functionally OK, would have to find a none pressurized location to return to. But: If trying to keep the engine certified, there is an issue. If Lycoming would put what you are doing in writting it would be great, but I don't think they will. Remember that if your paperwork is not perfect, your insurance may be worthless. From: "Romulo Augusto" Subject: Re: COZY: new engine info - continental & LYCOMING Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 18:09:11 -0300 Mike, do you have a prewiew about this lycoming cousts? Hugs! ________________________________________ Romulo Augusto da Cruz, Jr., Lt.MD ,Hospital da Policia Militar Av. do Contorno 2787, Sta. Efigenia. Belo Horizonte - Minas Gerais Brasil phone: 55 31-236-5153, 55-31-497-2080 http://www.homeshopping.com.br/~romulojr E-Mail: romulojr@brhs.com.br , E-Mail: cozybuilder@yahoo.com E-Mail Express: 15958965@pager.mirabilis.com ________________________________________ ---------- > De: Skorija > Para: Cozy_builders@canard.com > Assunto: COZY: new engine info - continental & LYCOMING > Data: Quarta-feira, 9 de Setembro de 1998 02:11 > > I talked to lycoming last week after seeing the info on the connection with > detroit diesel and foiund out the following > > Testing is done on first engine deliverred to lycoming by DD 6 or so months ago > New engine with mods will arrive for testing in 4 to 6 weeks > Specs > 4 stroke > Turbo > 2400 rpm > water cooled > 200 - 210 HP > Weight - that of io360 or + 5% more > Expects certification in 2000 or 2001 > expected pricing will be out in january,99 > > Now this surprised me even more > > Continental is recieving parts from suppliers for first engine this week > > Competition is good > > > Mike > 591 chapter 5 > From: "Tim Kilgore" Subject: COZY: engine sump Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 17:54:18 -0500 Does anyone know if the lycoming 0320 bottom sump will fit the lycoming 0360. Tim Kilgore jkl@sonet.net From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:08:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: engine sump On 09/08/98 17:54:18 you wrote: > > >Does anyone know if the lycoming 0320 bottom sump will fit the lycoming >0360. > >Tim Kilgore >jkl@sonet.net > > >From the 320 parts manual the part numbers are for various - numbers: 69370, 72362 with bottom mount carb or injector servo. 77965 for the -B1A with aft (normal engine orientation) injector mount. There are more differences, with foot notes, if any appear as O-320 part numbers, I can provide more detail. All use gasket number 68972. Does someone have an 360 parts manual and try to match numbers?? Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:33:25 -0400 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: engine sump Carl and All, re "Does someone have an 360 parts manual and try to match numbers??" The sump part numbers from the 0-360-A series engines are as follows: Sump - #78915 and #77159. Gasket - #LW-13353. It would appear that the 0-320 and 0-360 parts are different. dd From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:06:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: COZY: Engine options - Converting to fixed pitch prop. John Epplin wrote (I think) All orientations are normal tractor installation directions. While looking at the Lycoming 320 repair manual it appears that the crankshaft nose bearing is present both fore and aft of the prop governor port. With the prop governor installed there is pressurized oil "TO" this port often enough to keep the forward portion of this bearing lubricated. In the normal way of converting to a fixed pitch prop, the port is plugged, and oil from the aft portion of the bearing, fed by the crank oil gallery gets to the far forward part of this bearing. If a drain to atmospheric pressure is provided, then it is possible that the forward extreme of the bearing may be starved for lubrication. Not a good situation. Just a thought, no specific proof, but requires considerable investigation before doing. Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:14:13 -0400 From: John B Vermeylen Subject: COZY: Preoilers Saw an ad for preoilers from Oilamatic Inc. on the web. Their preoilers looked better than their price. Are there any preoilers available at a reasonable cost? Johnny V N69CZ From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:52:45 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Preoilers On 09/14/98 03:14:13 you wrote: > >Saw an ad for preoilers from Oilamatic Inc. on the web. Their preoilers >looked better than their price. Are there any preoilers available at a >reasonable cost? >Johnny V >N69CZ > > > > I assume you are talking Lycoming engine preoil before starting. If so, the 320 and 360 hold up well without. Excepting the 320-D, and thats one not preferred to buy. From: mbeduhn@juno.com Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:46:43 -0500 Subject: Re: COZY: Preoilers On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 03:14:13 -0400 John B Vermeylen writes: >Saw an ad for preoilers from Oilamatic Inc. on the web. Their >preoilers looked better than their price. Are there any preoilers available at >a reasonable cost? >Johnny V >N69CZ I purchased and am using an Oilamatic preoiler. Considering the quality of the product I feel that IT comes at a "reasonable cost". Yes it's expensive but after paying for the rest of the plane it's not that great a percentage of the total cost, and it should extend the life of one of the higher cost parts of the plane. Mark Beduhn Cozy IV N494CZ _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:55:48 -0400 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Preoilers Mark, re "...and it should extend the life of one of the higher cost parts of the plane." I wonder if a preoiler is necessary? My engine, an 0-360, came off a Cherokee and has 1950 hours since new, and at this point is running about as strong and smooth as it can. It did not have a preoiler and flew out of MASS for some 14 years - quite cold in the winter. I've checked overhaul shops all around the country and have about decided to let Blue Print overhaul this engine this winter...although I wonder if perhaps it couldn't run another 200-300 hours as is. Blue Print's solution to dry starts (is it a problem considering the history of this engine??) is AvBlend oil treatment. They are so confident of the product they warranty their engines for 3 years/1000 hours even with chrome cylinders. As a further thought on the subject, Lycoming does not indicate a need for a preoiler or there would be one on each certified engine. dd From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:28:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Preoilers -Avblend Dave Domeier writes Me to, cant's say it helps or hinders, friend sells it locally, possibly can ship. I have been using for 2 years, engine run on hot side with oil temps to 250F, had some rings collapse, but no stuck rings or bad scuffing. Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:20:32 -0500 From: Bulent Aliev Subject: COZY: Pre-Luber I just came across an ad for automotive pre-luber. It's made by: ENGINE LUBRICATION SYSTEMS 64 STATE ROAD PAOLI, PA 19301 610 647-2417 EMAIL: ENGINELUBE@AOL.COM From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:12:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Pre-Luber On 09/18/98 21:20:32 you wrote: > >I just came across an ad for automotive pre-luber. It's made by: > >ENGINE LUBRICATION SYSTEMS >64 STATE ROAD >PAOLI, PA 19301 >610 647-2417 >EMAIL: ENGINELUBE@AOL.COM > > > Whats the weight???? Maybe if you had a Maule or PA-18-150 Super Cub, you could afford the extra weight, or maybe just before you start, preoil, then disconnect, like Indy race car starters! Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 14:27:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Loy Subject: COZY: Aircraft engines Hi to the group, Does anyone know of a good web site for aircraft engine specifications? Weight, horsepower etc... Thanks, Mark _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 19:30:09 -0700 From: "J. Willis" Mark, try this,http://www.isd.net/eulmer/engines.html John From: "Hunter GA (Gary) at MSXSCC" Subject: RE: COZY: Preoilers -Avblend Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:59:33 -0500 Avblend is nothing but a marketing gimmick. The can contains nothing more than a refined grade of "sewing machine oil" and will neither hurt nor help your engine. Just because the FAA has approved it for use in your engine does not mean it does anything to help it, just that it won't hurt it - that is all they tested it for - if at all. Endorsements from engine manufactures and rebuilders are paid for with portions of the profit made from the HUGELY OVER-PRICED can of hog wash. My recommendation is to use name brand aviation lubricants appropriate for the temperature conditions and change it on regular basis. Something like AeroShell 15W50 is excellent for winter conditions, and straight weights in the summer months to recoup some of the additional cost of the 15W50. Gary Hunter Vari-Eze - N235GH > -----Original Message----- > From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com [SMTP:cdenk@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 11:29 AM > To: david010@earthlink.net; mbeduhn@juno.com > Cc: n69cz@usa.net; cozy_builders@canard.com > Subject: Re: COZY: Preoilers -Avblend > > Dave Domeier writes > > Me to, cant's say it helps or hinders, friend sells it locally, possibly > can ship. I have been using > for 2 years, engine run on hot side with oil temps to 250F, had some rings > collapse, but no stuck > rings or bad scuffing. Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 17:23:49 -0700 From: "J. Willis" Subject: COZY: Continental IO-360 engines (In cold weather the oil pressure would sit at zero for a long time after start, like several minutes) Used to fly a Piper Seneca on medivacs at -35 to -40, with the same engines, so i can verified the oil pressure lag on start up. Its is however not io-360 specific. . (..at cruise above 10,000 feet it would miss a beat once in a while, probably due to ignition) AS I recall, we always had one engine that would miss fire at higher altitudes. Kept you on your toes. . (Otherwise the engine is very smooth.)ever let us down. John From: "DeFord, Brian" Subject: COZY: Continental IO-360 engines Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:10:00 -0700 Does anyone have any experience with the Continental IO-360 engine? If so, would you care to expound on the pro's and con's of this engine installed in the Cozy MK-IV? My initial investigation has revelaed that the weight is greater than the Lycoming O-360, but the location of certain accessories may offset it. Any comments would be appreciated. Regards, Brian DeFord From: "Tim Kilgore" Subject: Re: COZY: Continental IO-360 engines Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:55:13 -0500 I checked on installing this type engine but after checking weights and reliability I chose to put in the lycoming. The IO360 cont. engine was used on cessna 336 aircraft and piper senica's. The engine probably could be addapted but you would have to build a defferent mount and cowling. The engine is rated at 210 horse power but you would be better off finding a good lycoming. Tim Kilgore jkl@sonet.net ---------- > From: DeFord, Brian > To: cozy_builders@canard.com > Subject: COZY: Continental IO-360 engines > Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 4:10 PM > > Does anyone have any experience with the Continental IO-360 engine? If > so, would you care to expound on the pro's and con's of this engine > installed in the Cozy MK-IV? My initial investigation has revelaed that > the weight is greater than the Lycoming O-360, but the location of > certain accessories may offset it. Any comments would be appreciated. > > Regards, > Brian DeFord Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:43:29 -0400 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Continental IO-360 engines Brian, re "Does anyone have any experience with the Continental IO-360 engine?" My only experience with this engine was flying a turbo arrrow for about 50 hours. In cold weather the oil pressure would sit at zero for a long time after start, like several minutes...at cruise above 10,000 feet it would miss a beat once in a while, probably due to ignition breakdown, never did get that problem fixed. Otherwise the engine is very smooth. I considered it briefly for the MKIV but not long, 'cause it is not a low priced engine and the engineering to get it installed, new cowling, etc., would have set by project way beyond social security age...I'm almost there as it is. My 2 cents worth....it is a mighty task to come up with an installation to beat the old, rugged, reliable, Lycoming 0-360...ancient technology as it is. dd From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:24:55 -0500 (CDT) Subject: COZY: Dirty Oil Cooler Over the last year my oil temperatures crept up, and recently I noticed the oil temperature in and out of the oil cooler were similar. After checking the vernatherm seats, and heating it in water with a thermometer, it appeared to be working correctly. The oil cooler, which came with the engine had 3900 hours in a Twin Commanche, and 650 hours in my Cosy. I removed the oil cooler, drained it, boiled it for several hours in a Trisodium Phosphate solution on our gas grill, flushed with water (garden hose hard connected), flushed with denatured alcohol, lacquer thinner, and acetone (one at a time). The flushing consisted of pouring about 4 liquid ounces into the cooler, with fingers blocking the ports, shake for 2 minutes in all positions up, and drain through a paper towel, reuse and add liquid as necessary. The alcohol was most effective and used most. The material flushed out was soft none gritty small flakes. Probably this material was coating the passages, acting as an insulating layer. The final flushing was water with hose, compressed air, alcohol to pick up water, and finally compressed oil. After reinstalling and one flight with OAT in low 70's, the oil temps are 20F lower, quite an improvement. I'm not saying this is the ideal way to do it. There is a company in the West that cleans and repairs oil coolers. They clean under pressure with solvent, monitoring the flow. If flow does not meet specs., it is is red tagged. I think their price for cleaning, repairing, yellow tag is around $250. The other option is a new cooler at around for in excess of $400. Suggest if you have an used cooler, getting cleaned, or replacing before flying. Saw somewhere recently, black anodize the cooler, I'm assuming exterior only, 20F temperature drop. From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:27:29 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: ENGINES On 10/20/98 15:22:40 you wrote: > > Hello All, > > Thank you for your informative answers on cost of completed aircraft. > > It seems the two most cost differentials are the engine and avionics. > I know the cost of the avionics depends on what I want, but there was > a range on engines from $2000-$18000 which leads to some more > questions. > > 1. A lot of you said to buy a used or almost "run out" engine. This > definitely seems to be the less expensive route. Do you buy this > engine and then have it rebuilt, or rebuild it yourself? How much > does this cost? I have rebuilt car engines, but I have a feeling > there are certain regulations pertaining to rebuilding aircraft > engines. [6 years ago: Bought 2 IO-320-B1A Lycomings from ad in trade-A-Plane for $8500. They came from a twin Commanche that was totally restored including new engines. They had 1900 hrs since 1st overhaul. Had Mags overhauled, new plugs and oil was all done, ran 100 hours, and overhauled with help of certified mechanic for $7000. I did most of the work, 10% discount on parts, and he did an excellent job on the paper work, charging just $700 for his part. Major costs were mandatory replacement parts, inspection, rebuiding i.e. rebushing rods and certification of parts (Crank, Crankcase, Rods,etc.) that were being reused.] > > 2. What is the definition of "Certified" engine? [ An engine that has been maintained inaccordance with FAA regulations. All work done by a certified shop or mechanic. All parts are either the original manufacturer or from someone who has a PMA (Parts manufacturer approval), and if appropriate repaired by a certified repair station. Although an Experimental aircraft does not require a certified engine, there is much good to be said for maintaining one in that condition. Since with an aircraft, you just can't stop at the roadside if you have a problem, the ONLY way to maintain an aircraft engine (the whole aircraft for what its worth) in the very best way, not cutting any corners, and fixing all complaints promptly. This almost always in accordance with FAA procedures and AD's. Also liability wise one could not find fault with that.] > > 3. For those of you who bought used engines, what did you do when you > got them? > > 4. What are some good ways and places to find used engines? [Trade A Plane, word of mouth, maybe insurance companys, especially after a major storm.] > > 5. What should I be looking for in a used engine? [A good history of the engine (Logbooks), read between the lines, if you are not competent in this area, ask a mechanic or engine shop to do it for you. > > Thanks in advance for the input. > > Timothy Ong > > > For those wondering about my "NL" email trailer. Yes, I am in the > Netherlands working, but will be back in Sunnyvale, Ca where I > ussually work in January. > > > Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:55:16 -0500 From: Tom Brusehaver Subject: Re: COZY: Re:Ellison TB? or Airflow performance fuel injection? >Would appreciate input concerning which system to use for an 0-360 XP engine >kit (190 HP) I just ordered for my Stagger EZ. The Ellison cost about $500 >less. What other advantaged or disadvantages does it have over the fuel >injection? Is there any more firm pricing on the XP 360 engine? At oshkosh they weren't sure. From: SWrightFLY@aol.com Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 07:50:23 EST Subject: Fwd: COZY: Re:XP360 engine kit and the Ellison Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (rly-zd01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.225]) by air-zd02.mail.aol.com (v50.22) with SMTP; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:49:38 -0400 Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id RAA05743; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA24330 for cozy_builders-list; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:44:14 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA24325; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:44:10 -0400 From: SWrightFLY@aol.com Received: from SWrightFLY@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id KGFJa07909; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5b62529a.3630f82a@aol.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:42:02 EDT To: tgb@cozy.wamnet.com Cc: canard-aviators@canard.com, cozy_builders@canard.com Subject: Re: COZY: Re:XP360 engine kit and the Ellison X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: SWrightFLY@aol.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/23/98 12:58:27 PM Central Daylight Time, tgb@cozy.wamnet.com writes: << Is there any more firm pricing on the XP 360 engine? At Oshkosh they weren't sure. >> Gregg Perry, a good friend and Cozy builder in East TN. and I have been looking for engines for our projects for over a year now and we both have decided to get the XP 360 kit (190 HP at 2700 RPM) and the Ellison Throttle body. The Ellison cost almost $1000.00 less than the airflow and the cost was the deciding factor as they are both excellent systems. We are the first to get the new XP in its kit form. This kit is in interim step for the company as they do not have the new case ready but all other parts are new. The cost of the kit with the Millennium cylinders and minus accessories is $14,300.00. We are assured of a flange run out of .000 so a 9 inch extension is useable. Both Gregg and I know just enough about engines to be "dangerous" so with this engine assembled by a knowledgeable A&P here in Nashville we are confident we will have a reliable powerplant. So far, the support and communications with Roy Scott, the XP representative has been great. Roy still does not have firm pricing on the complete XP engine they had on display at Osh, but he thinks it will be somewhere around 20k. When I do get firm pricing I will post it or you can call XP at 817-540-6500. They do not have a web page yet. Thanks to everyone who gave me input on my airflow or ellison question. It's really great to have all these experts only a mouse klick away. Steve Wright Stagger EZ From ???@??? Thu Nov 05 23:12:50 1998 Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id KAA20535 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:39:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA07059 for cozy_builders-list; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:29:32 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f Received: from gw-nl1.philips.com (gw-nl1.philips.com [192.68.44.33]) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA07050 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:29:28 -0500 From: ONG_TJO@cft.philips.nl Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl1.philips.com with ESMTP id QAA02235 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:29:37 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ONG_TJO@cft.philips.nl) Received: from smtprelay-eur1.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl1.philips.com via mwrap (4.0a) id xma002233; Thu, 5 Nov 98 16:29:37 +0100 Received: from nlcps1 (nlcps1.cft.philips.nl [130.144.85.33]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.8.5/8.6.10-1.2.2m-970826) with SMTP id QAA01330 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:29:36 +0100 (MET) Received: from iegate.cft.philips.nl by nlcps1; (5.65/1.1.8.2/28Jan95-0406PM) id AA21915; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:44:11 +0100 Received: from ccMail by iegate.cft.philips.nl (IMA Internet Exchange 2.12 Enterprise) id 0006A2BB; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:36:52 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:32:29 +0100 Message-Id: <0006A2BB.@cft.philips.nl> Subject: COZY: GAP DIESEL ENGINE To: cozy_builders@canard.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ONG_TJO@cft.philips.nl X-UIDL: 7df4ce2d40b642f39dd49fe5252c71ab Hello All, Most of you have probably heard about this, but for those interested there is a NASA web site for the GAP (GENERAL AVIATION PROPULSION PROGRAM). One of the engines being developed is a 200 HP two cycle diesel (JET A) engine. The TBO is expected to be 3000 hrs. I spoke with Leo Burkardt from NASA Lewis Research Center yesterday. The goad is for the engine to cost approximately $15K new. He said at first release it looks like it is going to cost $20K due to low volume, but should come down in price in later years. The first prototype is complete and is being tested now. I like the concept of this engine. It has some significant advantages: 1. Low RPM 2200 @ 200 HP 2. Runs of jet A 3. Reduction in fuel load due to higher specific energy compared to AVGAS or longer range, take your pick. 4. Turbo charged with electrical assist 5. Liquid cooled 6. Single control lever 7. Low vibration FOR THOSE INTERESTED THE SITE ADDRESS IS: http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/AST/GAP/ bye, Timothy Ong From: "Romulo Augusto" Subject: COZY: Engines weigth Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:02:52 -0200 Dear Carlos, greetings. Please, what is the weigth of your twin engines in fligth order ( I want to say, the complete engines weigth, including cooler systems, monts, exaust system, etc).? Congratulations. I am very much impressed about your solutions in the twin Cozy. A genius creation. Thank you in advance. Romulo Augusto da Cruz, Jr., Lt, MD, Cozy Plans SN +ACM-730 Office: Rua da Bahia 1345/1103 Lourdes, Status: Pre-building Belo Horizonte, MG , Brasil Phones: 55-31-274-5667, 55-31-497-2080 , 55-31-9954-9478 Romulojr+AEA-brhs.com.br , Cozybuilder+AEA-yahoo.com From: "John Rippengal" Subject: COZY: Re: [canard-aviators] Zoche diesel engines Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:01:14 +0300 Romulo, try: www.zoche.de/ If you click on the opening picture of the 300hp version (which weighs less than a Lycoming 0-320) you get an audio of the start up and 10 secs running of the engine. Latest I heard from Dr. Ittner of Zoche is that they are pushing very hard to clear up minor details (supplier qualification for minor parts) of the certification process because they are conscious of the multiple competition. They are estimating completion by next year but they have always said "next year". I suspect they mean it this time. They won't sell until certified by US and European authorities. John > Subject: [canard-aviators] Zoche diesel engines > Date: 13 November 1998 07:21 > > [The Canard Aviators's Mailing list] > > Hi Folks! > Anybody knows some news about Zoche Diesel engines? > Some preview? > > Thanks! > > Romulo Augusto da Cruz, Jr., Lt, MD, Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:43:41 -0500 From: bil kleb Subject: Re: COZY: Zoche diesel engines Romulo Augusto wrote: > > Anybody knows some news about Zoche Diesel engines? been at oshkosh for _many_ years. very elegant updates to the rotary diesel engine design, but nothing available yet (always next year, next year, etc.). it is supposed to cost as much as an equivalent new lycoming (hp-to-hp). > Some preview? they're online with plenty of info at: http://193.26.97.194/ -- bil From: "Romulo Augusto" Subject: Re: COZY: Zoche diesel engines Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:48:55 -0200 Thank you, Nat, All, Nat, in these days, what do you think about the diesel possibilities for Cozy? I know, the plans suggest the lycomings, I think, but and about that others alternatives? I want your personal oppinion about it. Regards, Romulo Augusto. -----Original Message----- From: Nat Puffer +ADw-cozy+AEA-extremezone.com+AD4- To: Romulo Augusto +ADw-romulojr+AEA-brhs.com.br+AD4- Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 2:31 PM Subject: Re: COZY: Zoche diesel engines +AD4-Romulo, +AD4-They always show their engines (2) at Oshkosh, but they won't say whether +AD4-they will ever be in production. Renault, Continental, Lycoming and Delta +AD4-Hawk diesels will probably be in production before Zoche. +AD4-Nat +AD4- +AD4- From: mfacchinelli@sogei.it Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:58:52 +0100 Subject: COZY: Lycoming diesel engine Canardians, Can someone give me update info about the new LYCOMING DIESEL engine ?? Thanks from ITALY Massimo Bonicelli COSY CLASSIC I-COSI reserved