Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:48:04 -0500 Subject: COZY: Possible engine source From: dhill36@juno.com (Dana Hill) In a recent email from Penn Yan Aero in NY I found out that they will getting in some O-360-A4M engines next month from an overseas flight school. These engines supposedly have 1900 to 2000 hours, are 1st run and come with log book. They are offering them for approx. $6,000 as is with crank and case guaranteed or $16,000 rebuilt. Nat says it's a good deal. Thought I'd pass it along to those fortunate builders that are ready to jump for an engine. If anyone knows this model and its features and the degree of compatibility as a pusher powerplant please email the group, I'm curious and may even go take a look at them when they come in. Dana Hill CZ Chapt. 5 ___________________________________________________________________ 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/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:12:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Possible engine source O-360-A4M Lycoming: 180 hp. @ 2700 RPM, 100LL fuel, 8.50:1 compression ratio, Slick Mags, Solid Crankshaft, Fixed pitch prop, special prop flange bushings, Dynafocal mounts. Bushings can be changed out easily, I don't see any problem as long as using fixed pitch prop. Penn Yan is reportedly good. Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:06:10 +0100 From: Jean-Jacques CLAUS Subject: Re: COZY: Possible engine source >> Dana Hill a écrit: >> >> > If anyone knows this model and its features and the degree >> of >> > compatibility as a pusher powerplant please email the group, I'm >> curious >> > and may even go take a look at them when they come in. >> > >> > Dana Hill >> > CZ Chapt. 5 >> > Dana and all, The previous link that I sent doesn't work correctly ! You can access to it by the following ( from an aft sub-dir ). Check out this link http://www.prime-mover.org/engines/Lycoming/ where you can find a description of each Lycoming engines from 0-235-xxx to IO-720-xxx. Jean-Jacques CLAUS Cosy F-PJJC ( reserved ) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:37:27 -0500 From: bil kleb Subject: Re: COZY: Possible engine source cdenk@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > O-360-A4M Lycoming: [...] 100LL fuel [...] also 91 octane autofuel stc'able from peterson aviation, http://www.webworksltd.com/webpub/PetersenAviation/PetersenAviation.html if you're going to keep it certified and choose to run such stuff... -- bil From: pop@deford.com Date: 20 Jan 1999 20:25:10 -0800 Subject: RE: COZY: Engines Terry, I'm looking into this engine as well and have seen weight numbers from 2lbs to as much as 85lbs more depending on the configuration. The 2lb number was from the guy at my local FBO who looked up a Lyc O-360 A1A dry weight and compared it with a Cont. IO-360 F series I believe (I've got the info at work so I could be wrong on that). Anyway, in talking to some other folks in the area who know these engines, the weight difference _may not_ be as relevent since I have been told some of the accessories may mount closer to the firewall offsetting some of the weight penalty. Haven't been able to confirm this yet. In trying to get information on aircraft weights and such, I have found it to be extremely difficult to get any documented data that a person could sit down and figure out the true weight and CG of the engines. If anyone here can point me in the right direction to get this info, I'm all eyes and ears... Regards, Brian DeFord brian@deford.com On Wed, 20 January 1999, "Pengelly, Stan L" wrote: > > I looked at it too. Believe the weight for the Continental was 85 pounds > more. Not good. Plus Nat hasn't approved the Cozy with the Continental, I > think. > > Stan L. Pengelly > Cozy MKIV #539 > > > ---------- > > From: Terry Pierce[SMTP:tpierce@ghg.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 12:35 PM > > To: Cozy builders > > Subject: COZY: Engines > > > > I was reading the other day and saw that the Continental IO-360 is a > > 6 cylinder engine. I would rather have a 6 than a 4. Anyone know what > > the size and weight difference is between the Continental and Lycoming? > > -- > > Terry Pierce <>< mailto:tpierce@ghg.net > > Cozy Mark IV #600 > > Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 06:01:49 -0600 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Engines Terry, re " I would rather have a 6 than a 4." And I'd rather have an 8. I drive a Northstar V8 powered Seville and it is the cat's meow for power and smoothness. But on a Cozy? My cut on this is that the Lycoming is a proven product, i.e., it works. I've flown both the Lycoming 0-360 and the Continental 0-360. The Continental is smoother, but I think the Lycoming is more bullet proof. It is an old engine but it is tough and reliable. Check with your insurance agent in considering this change. It is a factor to consider. dd From: N11TE@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:28:08 EST Subject: Re: COZY: Engines In a message dated 1/21/99 4:57:10 AM CST, JRaero@gte.net writes: > Terry Pierce wrote: > > > I was reading the other day and saw that the Continental IO-360 is a > > 6 cylinder engine. I would rather have a 6 than a 4. Anyone know what > > the size and weight difference is between the Continental and Lycoming? > > -- > > Terry Pierce <>< mailto:tpierce@ghg.net > > Cozy Mark IV #600 > > About 60 lbs and it will not fit in the standard cowl. > > > -- > Jeff Russell/AeroCad Inc. E-mail: Jeff@aerocad.com > 2954 Curtis King Blvd. Ft. Pierce, FL. 34946 > Shop# 561-460-8020 7:00am to 3:30pm Home# 561-344-6200 > Website: http://www.Aerocad.com > Composite workshop info: http://www.Sportair.com > Terry: Without intending to start a "should or shouldn't do" thread, I'd like to point out that calculations show that moving the battery from on top of the spar to the nose will balance about 85 lbs of additional engine/prop weight. Yes, it will add cable weight. Having spent a lot of time re-engineering the installation of an IO-540 (an even larger 6-cyl) engine into my AeroCanard, I can report that it is possible to move the engine far enough forward to be able to use the standard cowlings. This takes some major changes that most builders may not feel comfortable with. I'm not familiar enough with the Continental IO-360 to know if the same can be done with this engine. However, I've been told that there is at least one LongEZ flying with this 6-cyl. Like you, I prefer a 6-cylinder. Tom Ellis Cozy MKIV plans #25 now AeroCanard 540 s/n 11 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:38:19 -0600 From: Vance Atkinson Subject: COZY: 6 cylinder Dick Kridel has personal knowledge of the Cont. 6 cyld. in a Long EZ .  That aircraft is based in the LA area and is now about 6 years old or so.  He might be able to put you onto the owner.  His address is  longez@concentric.net From ???@??? Thu Jan 21 22:29:44 1999 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 PAA29475 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:18:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA18624 for cozy_builders-list; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:16:43 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f Received: from gateway.eftia.com (gateway.eftia.com [209.112.26.178]) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA18619 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:16:38 -0500 Received: from mail.name eftia.com by gateway.eftia.com via smtpd (for betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) with SMTP; 21 Jan 1999 20:11:47 UT Received: from idouglas (idouglas.eftia.com [209.47.191.226]) by eftia.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA24896; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:12:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36A7893A.4988@ibm.net> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:08:26 -0500 From: Ian Douglas Organization: WTC X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Campbell CC: cozy_builders@canard.com Subject: Re: COZY: 6 Cylinder Engines References: <199901211756.LAA26517@ece.umn.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ian Douglas X-UIDL: 321b3a4b5918ab8686af73869474d676 Hi there, I talked with Nat and he has decided NOT to approve the Franklin engine. Since I am going to typically be flying with 200 - 350lbs in the front seat, I am going to use the Franklin. Those of you looking for 0 timed Franklins can find them for about $8500.00 from Franklin Parts and Service (talk to Bob at 812-752-6919). I checked out a number of references and all of them had glowing reports. I just ordered mine... Nat will also (for a small fee) send you a set of plans for the installation instructions for the Franklin. Ian Steve Campbell wrote: > > Terry Pierce wrote: > > > I was reading the other day and saw that the Continental IO-360 is a > > 6 cylinder engine. I would rather have a 6 than a 4. Anyone know what > > the size and weight difference is between the Continental and Lycoming? > > -- > > Terry Pierce <>< mailto:tpierce@ghg.net > > Cozy Mark IV #600 > > I also prefer the 6. That is why I will be installing the Franklin. It > has been flown and approved by Nat. He is willing to provide some > assistance with the installation, and nominally at least, it provides an > extra 20 HP. The only real problem is that you have to buy a new one. It > is next to impossible to find a REPUTABLE rebuilt or used engine. > Steve > > Steve > > Steve Campbell Professor, ECE > University of Minnesota > 200 Union Street Minneapolis 55455 > Campbell@ece.umn.edu > (612) 625-5876 (612) 625-4583 (fax) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 17:42:44 -0500 From: Ian Douglas Subject: Re: COZY: 6 Cylinder Engines Hi Steve, Since these guys are in the same business (rebuilding Franklins) it might be sour grapes. I have over 7 references from Bob and all of them have said he did fantastic work and that their engines are running great. Franklin Parts and Service is in Indiana (IN? - I'm Canadian eh!) that advertises in Sport Aviation... Ian Steve Campbell wrote: > > Ian, > I am in much the same situation. Sorry to hear that Nat has dicontinued > his approval of the Franklin. Please be careful regarding the zero timed > rebuilds. I spoke to the chief mechanic at Winfield Aviation in NY after > he gave a seminar at OSH last summer on the Franklin. This shop > specializes in Franklin rebuilds and has been doing Franklins pretty much > exclusively for ~30 years. If Franklin Parts and Service is the shop near > the Ohio / Tenn border that advertises in Sport Aviation, they apparently > have a history of welding broken cranks and putting them in the engine, as > well as some other rather unsavory practices. You can call Winfield at 315 > 652-4405 to get more information. Please let me know what you find out. I > would love to avoid giving away so much money by buying a new engine. If > there is some merit to the stories, however, we really should say something > to the NG. > Steve > From: "Leslie Orosz" Subject: COZY: Questions along the 75% power.... Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:51:17 -0500 Which engines last longer normally aspirated or turbo-charged engines? What is the "advantage of a turbo-charged , or Supercharged engine over a normally aspirated engine? Why don't we see many, or (any?) turbo-charged Longs? Check out the "Tech Page" at http://www.sdsefi.com/tech.html for an excellent discussion of turbo-chargers and air cooled engines. From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:28:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Questions along the 75% power.... Turbo engines are much more expensive to operate, and purchase, and added weight in the range of 40 lbs. Also possibly fitting the turbo equipment within an EZ's tight cowling might be a problem. Operating an EZ above the mid 20,000' is not easy, where you would not do it routinely. The record attempts in the 25 -35K feet range require special preparation. Hopefully some of the people involved in these attempts will explain the details, but include the windshield frosting over. Apparently the plane flys OK, but other operational issues takeover. From: Wayne_Blackler@ansett.com.au Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:28:08 +1000 Subject: Re[2]: COZY: Questions along the 75% power.... G'Day All, I beleive a guy by the name of Giertz is building a TIO-360 (turbo) Long EZ. I am quoting this from the article on his aircraft "Gizmo" in a recent Sport Aviation. Also, when I did some A&P work before I got my job here at Ansett Australia, we had to do maintenance on a Cessna 340. It's engines (Continental) were a bad match for the turbos (or should I say vice-versa) with all sorts of problems every 100 hourly (Cracked cylinders, case etc). TBO is also reduced. It could work well in a Long EZ, and I look forward to Mr. Giertz finishing it... I beleive it's got Retracts on the mains too... Wayne AUSTRALIA . Turbo engines are much more expensive to operate, and purchase, and added weight in the range of 40 lbs. Also possibly fitting the turbo equipment within an EZ's tight cowling might be a problem. Operating an EZ above the mid 20,000' is not easy, where you would not do it routinely. The record attempts in the 25 -35K feet range require special preparation. Hopefully some of the people involved in these attempts will explain the details, but include the windshield frosting over. Apparently the plane flys OK, but other operational issues takeover. _____________________________________________________________________ CAUTION - This message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify Ansett Australia immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Ansett Australia. _____________________________________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 07:03:01 +0200 From: Jannie Versfeld Subject: Re: COZY: 6 Cylinder Engines Ian Douglas wrote: > > Hi there, > > I talked with Nat and he has decided NOT to approve the Franklin > engine. I am installaing a O-540 and went through the same with Nat. I need extra power for high alt take-off's. Weight will increase by 80 lbs. I have the engine and have weighed it against a IO-360. It turns out to 365 lbs without starter, carb & alternator. At 260Hp I dont mind the extra weight > > Nat will also (for a small fee) send you a set of plans for the > installation instructions for the Franklin. Sounds odd if he decided not to approve? Jannie Versfeld #673 From: Militch@aol.com Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:30:00 EST Subject: Re: COZY: Questions along the 75% power.... In a message dated 1/22/99 3:03:48 AM, you wrote: >Which engines last longer normally aspirated or turbo-charged engines? >What is the "advantage of a turbo-charged , or Supercharged engine over >a normally aspirated engine? A turbo charged engine pressurizes the intake manifold. If used to generate power in excess of that available at sea level (say in an automobile), it's the equivalent of running with the accelerator past the full open position. I think the reliability implications are obvious. The advantage - more power, or in an aircraft, the same power at altitude that you can get at sea level. The disadvantages - cost, complexity, increased thermal loads on the engine, the requirement for a higher volume oil pump in some engines, the need to get the oil back from the turbo into a cooled, liquid form (it exits the turbo as froth which is to be expected given that the turbine will idle at 20,000 rpm and reach 70,000 to 90,000 rpm when generating even low levels of boost). By the way, a correctly sized turbo is quite thermally efficient, but that still means numbers in the 55% to 70% range. So, you can easily reach inlet air temperatures of 120 to 150 degrees F. That is an additional thermal load above and beyond that resulting from the increased power generation. Superchargers are less thermally efficient than turbos. Adiabatic compression efficiences of around 35 to 40% are typical I believe for Roots type scroll compressors. Drag racers like them because they generate a predictable amount of boost for a given RPM (various other factors being equal), and they deal with the thermal loads by shoving a gallon or two of nice cold alcohol into the engine in just a few short seconds. Peter Militch Cozy Mark IV #740 Chapter 4 From: "kim lueck" Subject: COZY: Engine Info Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:57:08 -0600 Hi All, I finally got a line on an engine. Someone in our chapter is selling a disassembled IO360. It has all the logs, but is missing some parts. It's missing the following: Fuel injection spider and lines mags oil pan pistons and rods I'm going to check it out with an A&P from the chapter, but I need to know the total cost to get this engine flying. Any ideas on the cost of the missing parts? The A&P recommended replacing the fuel injection unit with a unit from Air Flow. He also suggested one mag and a Light Speed electronic unit. Any estimated costs on these? What would it cost to have the engine assembled? Can any A&P do this, or must it be a repair station, similar to instruments? Thanks for the help. Daryl Lueck Cozy IV N797DL Got to fly this summer! From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:50:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Info On 01/21/99 22:57:08 you wrote: Daryl Lueck wrote: >Fuel injection spider and lines I assume you have the Bendix injector. Check with D & G aircraft near Southbend In. maybe in Southern Mich. for the distribution block. On an EZ mount the distribution block on the cool (lower side) of the engine. Get the special length tubing from Airflow Performance. >mags >oil pan Check with Ron Wilson in Ga., he just got a different oil pan, he can fill you in. He's on this list. >pistons and rods You are also going to need an overhaul kit of gaskets, rings, etc. Check with El Reno Aircraft, El Reno, Ok. Also current Trade A Plane. >the total cost to get this engine flying. My Guess is $9K not including the initial cost. The A&P recommended replacing the fuel injection unit with >a unit from Air Flow. Bendix and Airflow are both near equal. If you have the Bendix, D & G will overhaul it for around $250. He also suggested one mag and a Light Speed >electronic unit. Insist on a sensor for the electronic mounted in the Mag hole! > What would it cost to have the engine assembled? Can any A&P do this [YES] With you helping $1K On the parts you are considering buying, they should ALL go to a REPUTABLE certified repair station, that you TRUST, and have yellow serviceable tags! DO NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:44:21 -0500 From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" Subject: Fwd: COZY: Engine Info kim lueck wrote: >..... Someone in our chapter is selling a disassembled IO360...... >..... Any ideas on the cost of the missing parts? Check the ACS catalog - they sell mags - I think they're about $400 each. Don't know about the other stuff - I'd think your A&P could easily get the prices. >... The A&P recommended replacing the fuel injection unit with >a unit from Air Flow. He also suggested one mag and a Light Speed >electronic unit. Any estimated costs on these? The Airflow setup will end up costing about $2500 (I just got their info to compare with the costs of an Ellison, at about $1700). The LS ignition will be about $1100 each, (IIRC from their web page). > What would it cost to have the engine assembled? No clue. >..... Can any A&P do this, or >must it be a repair station, similar to instruments? Since this will clearly be a non-certified engine, you could have anyone do it, or do it yourself. There are no restrictions on uncertified engines. This in no way implies that this is a good idea - it'll depend on how much you know about engines. But if you get certified parts and follow the assembly manual, these are basically just big volkswagen engines - there's not much to them. You just won't be able to call it a Lycoming IO-360 - it'll have to be a Lueck IO-360 :-). -- Marc J. Zeitlin marcz@ultranet.com http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/ From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 06:13:52 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Fwd: COZY: Engine Info The certified engine is more than just a piece of paper, for this important part of the flying machine, there are tricks, and tools required to do the job for most reliability. I would require all parts be inspected (both dimensionally and non-destructive testing [magnaflux, etc.]). A certified repair station will be set up to do this best with measuring fixtures, and other equipment plus competent personel. Also they will be up to date on A.D.'s, service bulletins, etc. And I would be comfortable that they do a good job. Check with the local FAA office, whether their certificate is current. Also I would use a mechanic that is familiar with that model engine to as a minimum look over my shoulder carefully. My previous experience includes overhaul and major work on more than a few VW bugs, Porsches, Ford Escorts, and heavy V8's, plus working in Ford engine plants for 20 years, and when I majored my engine I did the above. The mechanic got all parts at 10% discount, charged $700 for his services. Total was $7000, that was 5 years ago. Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:43:07 -0600 From: David Domeier Subject: COZY: Good 'ol Lycoming I had the neat experience today of watching a real pro disassemble my Lycoming 0-360. I've flown my MKIV a little over 60 hours with an 18+ year old engine with over 1900 hours on it, and decided it was prudent to find out what was going inside this engine, especially since it had been on the shelf for over 6 years when I first fired in up about 10 months ago. After much research on the subject of overhauling an aircraft engine, I decided to go with Blueprint Aircraft Engines in southwest Chicago. The first thing that happened after we arrived at their facility was a tour of the building. One part of the company is dedicated to building Indy type race car engines. They are currently taking an Olds Aurora V-8 (which I believe is a derated Northstar rated at 240 hp) and rebuilding it to run at 10,000 rpm and develop 600 hp. Another part of building is dedicated to the production of Avblend for aircraft engines and another product for auto engines. The aft part of the building is dedicated to overhauling aircraft engines. It's a family business and there were 3 guys working on aircraft engines today. They do 8 or 10 a month. Michael Rachanski, our host, conducted the tour and then proceeded to disassemble my engine. He talked about each part as it revealed itself in the process. This cylinder is showing some wear here, the valves are in very good condition, see that lifter - it's not rotating, probably because the cam does not have the required 1° lobe slope to turn it, this engine is very clean - are you sure you're not using Avblend? (grin), and finally he micro measured the crank. After some 1900 hours of service, it was still in "new limits"! Wow, was I impressed! And am I pleased that I did not send this engine back to Lycoming - there's no way I would have gotten this fine crank back in a rebuilt engine. I could have gotten and engine with a crank on it's 4th run and just barely serviceable. This entire event took about 3 hours. I will retrieve the engine sometime after April 1, and am confident it will live up the to the 3 year 1000 hour warranty these guys offer. dd From: "Bob Hassel" Subject: RE: COZY: XP 360 Engine Kit Info Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 23:01:06 -0600 The web url is: http://www.xpindustries.com/ -----Original Message----- From: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com [mailto:owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com]On Behalf Of Joseph H. Hart IV Sent: Saturday, February 20, 1999 8:21 PM To: cozy_builders@canard.com Subject: COZY: XP 360 Engine Kit Info Is there anyplace on the web where I can find information on the XP 360 engine kit. I recall that someone on the list had ordered one for his Cozy. I thought that it was manufactured by Superior but I couldn't find any info on their website. Thanks. -- Jody Hart, New Orleans, LA Cozy Mark IV plans no. 648, N359JH (reserved) Chapter 6, see latest progress at: From: "Bill Kastenholz" Subject: Re: COZY: XP 360 Engine Kit Info Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:58:54 -0500 >Is there anyplace on the web where I can find information on the XP 360 >engine kit. I recall that someone on the list had ordered one for his >Cozy. I thought that it was manufactured by Superior but I couldn't >find any info on their website. > >Thanks. > >-- >Jody Hart, Yes Jody, You can try xpindustries.com . I just talked to Roy, he says they hope to have the kit by Sun 'n Fun. In the meantime, they do have the XP sport 360. It uses a used crankcase with all new parts. No accesories are included and the kit is $14,500. Bill Kastenholz From: mfacchinelli@sogei.it Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 13:59:30 +0100 Subject: COZY: Lycoming engine Canrdians, this is a question for all of you...(building or flying COSY CLASSIC - 3 place). Which model of Lycoming engine, in your experience, is suitable for this flying machine ? (O-320, IO-320, O-360, IO-360...)and which dash numbers ? I'm planning in the future to install a variable pitch propeller... Any suggestion is wellcome... CIAO from Italy Massimo Bonicelli From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:57:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Lycoming engine The 320 seems to be most popular in the 3 place, THe are very few 360's in that model. With respect to a variable pitch prop, there are a very few of those flying. The main issue is weight and balance. I have a 320 in a Cosy Classic, and it cruises easily over 200 mph (175K). Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 14:31:18 -0800 From: Paul Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: COZY: Lyc. O-360 - I need datas]] Bulent Aliev wrote: > > You may be able to help this guy, Paul? > Bulent > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: COZY: Lyc. O-360 - I need datas > Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 06:17:44 +0100 > From: Jean-Jacques CLAUS > Organization: http://perso.club-internet.fr/jjclaus > To: canard-aviators@canard.com, cozy_builders@canard.com > > Hi All, > > I have just received the Prop Optimizer software form D.Bates. > > After few hours of trainning....I love it. Now, I'm really sure that to > buy a propeller from the diameter and the pitch references is like to > play poker ( let pay for see ). > > For to compute the fuel flow and the miles/gallon parameters, the > software needs some datas about the specific fuel consumption of the > engine at sea level. > > I found the following datas from a non-lycoming source : > > Lyc. O-360 at sea level > > RPM 1800 2250 2700 > HP 132 164 180 > Fuel C. ( lb/hp/h ) 0.6 0.55 0.52 > > Can you confirm me these ? or give me some others ? > > Thank you, > > Jean-Jacques CLAUS > Cosy Classic F-PJJC ( reserved ) I don't think it is quite that bad. Try .5 to .43 or so Paul Lamar The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter. Powered by Linux. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ http://www.linux.org Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 06:42:23 -0600 From: Michael Link Subject: Re: COZY: Hand Starting EJCV@aol.com wrote: > My Long-Ez has a Conti. O-240 with a B&C starter. This starter was made for > the O-200 which has 40% less capacity and, more importantly, significantly > lower compression. The result is that the battery has to be fully charged to > turn the engine. This is not a problem as, in any case, I prefer to hand swing > the engine to start, especially from cold. > > The problem is that I have fitted Airflow Performance fuel injection, which is > marvellous, and now for a hand start I need a second person to turn on the > electric fuel pump when the engine starts. Does anyone know of a system which > will turn on the electric pump automatically when the engine sarts to run? > > Thanks, Eddie Vann. You don't need the electric pump except to prime before you attempt to start. For a cold start, just run the electric pump 4-5 sec. at full rich mixture then shut off pump. Leave mixture rich and start propping. ( For a hot start delete the priming. ) The mechanical pump on your engine will start and run the engine just fine. Regards, Michael Link Cozy MK-IV N-171-ML ( W/ Airflow Perf. Fuel inj.) From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:01:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Hand Starting On 03/16/99 02:15:32 you wrote: > >My Long-Ez has a Conti. O-240 with a B&C starter. This starter was made for >the O-200 which has 40% less capacity and, more importantly, significantly >lower compression. The result is that the battery has to be fully charged to >turn the engine. This is not a problem as, in any case, I prefer to hand swing >the engine to start, especially from cold. > >The problem is that I have fitted Airflow Performance fuel injection, which is >marvellous, and now for a hand start I need a second person to turn on the >electric fuel pump when the engine starts. Does anyone know of a system which >will turn on the electric pump automatically when the engine sarts to run? > >Thanks, Eddie Vann. > > I have the Bendix injector, the Airflow should be the same, as someone else said, a brief electric pump on with full rich when cold. When hot I start with idel cutoff, and richen the mixture after it starts firing, that would for hand propping be a problem. Remember for an EZ with updraft cooling, the distribution block should be mounted on the cold side (under or forward of engine). Airflow can make the special length thin tubing. I have for sale a complete set of IO-320 small tubing with clamps, etc. It was used 6 hours, then I went back to my original cool side installation. Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 15:25:05 -0700 From: Kenneth S Yellen Subject: COZY: auto engines Whats the advice on using an auto engine, like a 3.8 ford? thanks, Ken Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 18:18:09 -0500 From: Gary Dwinal Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines Hi Ken, There are many concerns with putting an auto engine in your airplane. Some of them are weight and physical size. They generally weigh too much and are too big to fit under reasonably good looking cowlings. Most auto engines will also have to include a PSRU or propeller speed reduction unit to slow down the rpm of the propeller to around 2500 to 2600 RPM range where it will be most efficient. This also adds weight, size and complexity to the installation. Then you have the reliability issue. The auto engine has to be turned up to around 4500 RPM's or higher to get a reasonable amount of horse power out of it. For the most part these engines were never meant to be turned those kinds of RPM's for a sustained two, three, or four hour period. I too went through the same thing you are currently going through before I did the proper thing and paid big money for a Lycoming. First, I was going to install a Mazda rotary engine, then a Ford 3.8, then a detuned NASCAR buick V-6 race engine. After you read enough of the stories where people have tried to make auto engine work in these planes and end up spending more money than what a Lycoming would have cost them in the first place, you will probably go buy a Lycoming also. There are however, a few airplanes flying out in the world with auto engines on them. Heck, there is even one crazy dude out on the west coast I believe, with a Ford V-8 in his Long EZ!!!!!! Good Luck!! Gary Dwinal Kenneth S Yellen wrote: > Whats the advice on using an auto engine, like a 3.8 ford? > thanks, > > Ken From: "Romulo Augusto" Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 21:48:33 -0300 Ken, greetings; Gary was well reasoned in his oppinion about auto engines. I just add the follow: Car engines was not made to work at 70-80% of the power all the time. Maybe can you solve this question using a more powerfull engine, to allow ( the engine) work at 50-60% of the power, when in cruise, without compromisses the airplane performance. But almost ever, more power, more weight, so..... hugs, Romulo Augusto. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Dwinal To: Kenneth S Yellen Cc: Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 8:18 PM Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines >.... The auto engine has to be turned up to >around 4500 RPM's or higher to get a reasonable amount of horse power >out of it. For the most part these engines were never meant to be turned >those kinds of RPM's for a sustained two, three, or four hour period.... >..... There are >however, a few airplanes flying out in the world with auto engines on >them. Heck, there is even one crazy dude out on the west coast I >believe, with a Ford V-8 in his Long EZ!!!!!! >Good Luck!! >Gary Dwinal Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 20:06:32 -0500 From: Bulent Aliev Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines If you are interested in rotary engines, you can join Paul Lamar's excellent ellectronic news letter by sending him a note at: rotaryeng@earthlink.net. Bulent From: alwick@juno.com Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 18:12:34 -0800 Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 15:25:05 -0700 Kenneth S Yellen writes: >Whats the advice on using an auto engine, like a 3.8 ford? >thanks, > >Ken To sum it up: I've found it very easy to obtain opinions on the subject. It's also not too difficult to arrive at the facts. What's really tough is to discern the true significance of the facts. There are some good sources of info, but many are biased. Probably best to read the archives of the various interest groups and then address each item of concern. I'm familiar with two e-mail groups related to my Subaru engine. I don't know about the Ford. You may want to do a query on "deja news". Clearly, the most conservative approach is to go conventional. My plane should be flying next year. Will keep y'all posted on endeavor. Good luck! -al wick Canopy Latch System guy. Artificial intelligence in Cockpit Cozy sn 389 driven by stock Subaru 2.5 ltr.90% complete. ___________________________________________________________________ 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/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 22:16:54 -0500 From: Steele Olmstead Subject: COZY: Auto engines: the final word. Hi ya'll.  I am the personal injury lawyer in the bunch.  You know the guy who big business says is "well-heeled" and "italian suited."  Well it's all crap.  If I was the guy who was "making a killing" like all that anti-consumer business lobby wants you to think, why would I be building an airplane.

I do a job just like you do.   Only my job is assessing risk and liability.  And being an airframe engineer with your friends looking over your shoulder and the history of the plastic airplanes behind you is an assessable risk.  However, as Michael puts it, adding an untested automotive engine in the equation makes the risk un assessable.

Don't do it.  You will die.  Your family will sue Nat and he rightly will win the lawsuit after your family has been put through the horrid details of your fiery, ghastly death twice.  The lawyer your family hires will not even get past summary judgment.

Bite the bullet.  Buy an airplane engine.  You will sleep better.

J. Steele Olmstead, Esq.

p.s.  I will not take your family's case against Nat if you use an auto engine.  I don't represent survivors of people who essentially commit suicide.

Michael Link wrote:

Kenneth S Yellen wrote:

> Whats the advice on using an auto engine, like a 3.8 ford?
> thanks,
>
> Ken

Hi Ken,

I was a big auto engine proponent. I own a Mazda rotary (turbo block
13-B) with a Ross P.S.R.U.  My Cozy flys with a Lycoming 0-360 strapped
to the back end. How did that happen? Reality set in! As I was getting
closer to the end of my project, the questions that I had about the
engine installation and the technical hurdles to overcome, were no
longer just theoretical considerations. I began picturing myself at the
end of the runway with clearance to take off.  I thought about the
untested airframe with a totally untested powerplant; it was too much
for me to handle. I have engaged in activities involving risk before,
but I was always able to prepare, and thus manage the risk to a level
that would assure me of a positive outcome. I was unable to come up with
a plan that acceptably managed the risk of first flight combined with
testing an unproven engine simultaneously.

I know that there are people who have looked at the same situation and
decided to proceed ; I  applaud them. For me, the prospect of further
delaying the completion of a project already well beyond my most
conservative time estimates, plus the possibility of reducing all the
years of work to a pile of smoldering fiberglass, convinced me to bite
the bullet and buy the Lycoming.

I havn't regretted the decision.

Regards,
Michael Link  Cozy MK-IV    N-171-ML

 From ???@??? Sat Mar 20 22:10:58 1999 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 XAA11493 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 23:49:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA02614 for cozy_builders-list; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 23:27:05 -0500 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 XAA02609 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 23:27:00 -0500 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id WAA28253; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 22:13:52 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 22:13:52 -0600 (CST) Received: from ely-oh3-41.ix.netcom.com(206.216.59.105) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028241; Fri Mar 19 22:13:44 1999 To: alwick@juno.com To: cozy_builders@canard.com Message-Id: <1999319231417641@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines X-Mailer: Netcomplete v4.0, 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: beb176d026831c793acd21059c79a4f2 I worked in the Ford engine plant that makes/made the 302 (5.0L including the HO Mustang), Cleveland 351, and the Duratec V-6 that is optional in the Contour, Taurus, and Jaguar. The Plant manager offered me a brand new Duratec aluminum V-6 (I could have watched it being built and tested)(Ford tests every engine on gasoline before it leaves the plant where it was built). Talk about an incentive. I have been flying a Lycoming IO-320, I think that makes a statement. From: "John Stricker" Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 00:37:40 -0600 I promised myself I'd stay out of this, but here I am anyway. First off, if you're interested in the Ford V-6, check out the homebuilt newsgroup and get in touch with Bruce Frank. He has a lot of experience with them and is very helpful. You can get his email address off the group. The statements made about auto conversions are, by and large, probably accurate (except for the one that says if you put an auto conversion in your a/c you will die. That is about the single most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on the list IMHO.). They're a lot of trouble to get the installation correct and they probably won't save you a lot of money. But then again, that's pretty much true about building your own aircraft as well. The whole point of building an a/c like the Cozy is that it is what you want to do. You want to build the a/c you want, the way you want, and it's your hobby. If you do decide to use an auto conversion, there are a lot of resources available, but it will take a ton of work. Personally, I'm going to use a certified engine, most likely, (or a variant of one) just because it's going to take me long enough to just build the a/c and I would like to fly in it some day. But if your hobby is to make an auto conversion, that is just as valid as the good attorney wanting to build an airplane. OTOH, if I had a known airframe, I would be very tempted to do an auto conversion and have no doubt that it could be just as reliable as a certified one. And, in fact, that may be my project after the Cozy is done. I notice that Jannie is using a 540 Lyc. Not an approved engine by Nat. There's nothing wrong with this, if that's what they want to do. But I'm not real sure that it's going to be a whole lot easier to put the 540 in than it would be, say, a Subaru package from someone or one of the rotary packages. John Stricker jstricke@odsys.net "I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain just to become a vegetarian" ----- Original Message ----- From: Jannie Versfeld To: Kenneth S Yellen Cc: Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 11:13 PM Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines : Kenneth S Yellen wrote: : > : > Whats the advice on using an auto engine, like a 3.8 ford? : > thanks, : > : > Ken : By the time you have developed a suitable auto engine for aviation : use and added the cost, you may as well have spent the money on an aero : engine. Besides you will have plenty of cooling problems as auto : engines were not designed for full power operation 80% - 90% of the : time. : : My advice ... stick to aero engines. : : Kind regrads, : Jannie Versfeld : Cozy # 673 "Lycoming O-540" : Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 08:20:10 -0500 (EST) From: "George A. Graham" Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Kenneth S Yellen wrote: > Whats the advice on using an auto engine, like a 3.8 ford? > thanks, My airplane is a side-by-side canard with fixed main gear, very similar to an early Cozy two place, it started as an Eracer but I didn't follow the plans. I have been flying since Thanksgiving 98. It now has 70 air hours. I really enjoy my auto engine. I cruise at 150 mph IAS at 6.5 gph auto fuel or avgas which is about 50 percent power setting (measured on a recent trip to Memphis Tn, not knocking around the test area). When I'm ready I'll install my wheelpants and nose gear doors then see how fast it will fly. The engine is turbine smooth and lighter than an O-320 with a psru (my empty weight is 940 lbs). You need to look at our own talents to decide. Are you capable of designing and fabricating a custom engine mount, exhaust system, and all the other important stuff ? Do you know who can ? I tested mine on the back of a truck for 40 hours before flying it. It is an additional project, but I've enjoyed it. It took me four years to create my airplane, plans purchase to first flight. I did the epoxy work during warm weather, engine stuff during cold. I suggest getting Mick Myal's book and subscribe to his newsletter "Contact" for starters. George Graham RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 07:41:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines Was said: At nearly 700 hours on my Lycoming, I routinely cruise at 200MPH ++, everywhere from Boston, Jackson, Wy; Grand Canyon, and Florida. At 6.5 gallon/hr easily loaf at 150 mph. If an engine problem should appear at a distant point, its likely competent assistance and parts are readily available. Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 06:58:21 -0700 From: Kenneth S Yellen Subject: COZY: auto engines I wish to thank all who have written to express their opinions and experiences about my question on using an auto engine. It is very reassuring to have such a large number of people who will take the time to share their knowledge with me. I live in a small remote town, with the nearest A & P 72 miles away, but have owned many vehicles with a 3.8, and have been very impressed with its reliability and power. There are a number of VERY qualified Ford mechanics here in town, hence my thinking. At this point, I am wondering if the cozy will work for my needs, since my next project is to build a house, with hangar, and fly out of my front yard, but not on a paved strip (the driveway is 1/2 mile long), and the opinion has been that the cozy will not appreciate that either. Once again, thanks for the input. Ken Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 19:53:04 +0200 From: Jannie Versfeld Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines cdenk@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > Was said: > > At nearly 700 hours on my Lycoming, I routinely cruise at 200MPH ++, everywhere from Boston, Jackson, Wy; Grand Canyon, and > Florida. At 6.5 gallon/hr easily loaf at 150 mph. If an engine problem should appear at a distant point, its likely competent > assistance and parts are readily available. Well said and I think we all lose sight of this most important issue - spares at airfields. Kind regards, Jannie From: BCGARDNER@aol.com Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:27:52 EST Subject: Re: COZY: alternate engines Jannie, What do you figure your 540 engine installation weighs, compared to the O-360? Barry Gardner From: "John Stricker" Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:46:31 -0600 Jannie, Don't misunderstand me. I'm not arguing with your choice at all. If you want to power your Cozy with an industrial strength and sized rubber-band, and think you can work all the engineering details out, more power to you. :-) I would disagree that the only problem you face is new engine mount and exhaust stack. I respectfully submit the following as a tentative list: 1) Mount (already mentioned) 2) Exhaust (already mentioned) 3) Firewall reinforcement (earlier in the post) 4) Weight and Balance (earlier in the post) 5) New Cowling (earlier in the post) 6) Cooling baffling on engine and cowling 7) Intake air ducting, filtering, and alternate air source 8) Cooling air intake and exhaust sizing and directing of airflow 9) Oil cooler sizing, attaching, ducting, and plumbing 10) Fuel system modifications 11) Propeller selection and sizing 12) Airflow to the prop as it's affected by the new (larger) cowling And this is just the stuff off the top of my head. But again, you have a head start as you can look at a/c like the Berkut and Velocity that already have a 540 in them and copy some of their solutions. Likewise, if you want to use a Soob, there are a lot of resources that are available if that's the way you want to go, including FWF packages that replace a 360 in some a/c. True, the radiator can be a problem. Then again, so can developing the cooling system for an air-cooled installation as many here will attest. The other questions you raise are valid ones and many have confronted and answered them. But it does take time and work to do it. We've all got different reasons for selecting the engines we use to power our a/c. Obviously, some people give more weight to some factors than others do. Even Nat experimented with alternates to the Lyc 360 (Franklin) to see if it might be a better solution and decided it wasn't. I, or anyone else, can't tell you that picking the 540 is "wrong" for you and you can't tell anyone else that an auto conversion is "wrong" for them. Auto Conversions are way past the "pull it out of a junkyard and fire it up" state of the art now and there ARE some viable alternatives out there. Not to you, and that's OK. But to others they are viable alternatives. Again, I'm not arguing your choice of the 540 if it's what you want to use for whatever reasons. I certainly don't disagree that when you change from what's in the plans it's going to cause more work. I mostly jumped in because of an earlier comment (not from you) to the effect that if you use an auto engine you will die. If that's so, then there are a lot of ghosts flying around out there. :-) John Stricker jstricke@russellks.net "I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain just to become a vegetarian" ----- Original Message ----- From: Jannie Versfeld Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines : No radiator or redux box needed. A proven engine that has happily and : safely kept thousands of aircraft airborne. : : Yes I aggree that the O-540 is not approved by Nat and there are valid : reasons for this like a new cowl design which needs to be developed, a : new engine mount and more strength in the firewall attach (which I have : taken care of) and relocation of the battery and carefull attention to : C-of-G. : : I will get of the runway in less distance than with a O-360 and I will : climb at 2000'/min at 5300 ft altitude and I will be +-150 lbs : overweight. It is my plan and I enjoy every minute building it and it : is a great design. : : I can assure you all that installing a O-540 is by far less trouble than : an aouto engine, especially in pusher configuration. Where will the : radiator/s go? how will aouto engines work and last with avgas? What : oil will you use? : : The only problem I will face installing the O-540 (which I already have) : is a new engine mount and exhaust stack and I figure that if you can : build a Cozy you can overcome these simple obstacles. : : After all the O-540 is much more readily available than the O-360. Whuy : not use it and to top it all it runs much more smoothly. : : Kind regards, : Jannie : : Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:25:43 +0200 From: Jannie Versfeld Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines John Stricker wrote: > > Jannie, > > Don't misunderstand me. I'm not arguing with your choice at all. If you > want to power your Cozy with an industrial strength and sized rubber-band, > and think you can work all the engineering details out, more power to you. > :-) One thing is for sure, I do not see your comments as arguing but as usefull points which I may not have given consideration to but I trust that I have thought of many issues before I decided to buy thet trusty old (Re-Man 0 hrs) 540. > > I would disagree that the only problem you face is new engine mount and > exhaust stack. I respectfully submit the following as a tentative list: > > 1) Mount (already mentioned) Not a problem ... it is much more simple to construct than a ring dynafocal ... it uses all straight tubing and no complex curves. > 2) Exhaust (already mentioned) A three into one is one option or stub exhausts exiting the bottom of the cowl. > 3) Firewall reinforcement (earlier in the post) A couple more layers of glass .. it is already hell for strong. > 4) Weight and Balance (earlier in the post) Carefull calculations. > 5) New Cowling (earlier in the post) This is painfull but achievable. > 6) Cooling baffling on engine and cowling Standard inter cylinder baffles and I will be using a downdraft pressure plenum system ... quite sinple to build. > 7) Intake air ducting, filtering, and alternate air source This is where it gets quite exciting ... top scoopos over the cylinder cowls to force feed air through each side individually. The bottom NACA scoop to supply the Marvel MA4-5 carb and a intake manifold to supply air to the oil cooler that will exit the cowl right under the spinner. > 8) Cooling air intake and exhaust sizing and directing of airflow Already mentioned. > 9) Oil cooler sizing, attaching, ducting, and plumbing Normal oil cooler for 360-450's and a couple brackets, a manifold og fiber glass and some 3"scat hosing > 10) Fuel system modifications No mod needed. 3/8" tubing can supply at 22 gph at normal mechanical pressures. > 11) Propeller selection and sizing this is a problem in that there are not props available for 260hp + so I had some help from Nigel Field who ran numbers for me on prop-opt and I rechecked that they are accurate. I willmake my own composite 3 blade prop stressed for 300hp. Wont cost more than $200 > 12) Airflow to the prop as it's affected by the new (larger) cowling Cowilng will not be much larger that with a 360. I will be using a close fitting cowl since I will be using forced air downdraft plenum cooling. Using the NACA scoop it relies on low pressure in the top cowling to draw cooling air from the scoop intake hence the larger area equired in the to cowl. > > And this is just the stuff off the top of my head. But again, you have a > head start as you can look at a/c like the Berkut and Velocity that already > have a 540 in them and copy some of their solutions. Yep, I did. > > Likewise, if you want to use a Soob, there are a lot of resources that are > available if that's the way you want to go, including FWF packages that > replace a 360 in some a/c. I have looked at many and it seems that an aero engine is still the best choice for me. > > True, the radiator can be a problem. Then again, so can developing the > cooling system for an air-cooled installation as many here will attest. The > other questions you raise are valid ones and many have confronted and > answered them. But it does take time and work to do it. That's for sure > > We've all got different reasons for selecting the engines we use to power > our a/c. Obviously, some people give more weight to some factors than > others do. Even Nat experimented with alternates to the Lyc 360 (Franklin) > to see if it might be a better solution and decided it wasn't. I, or anyone > else, can't tell you that picking the 540 is "wrong" for you and you can't > tell anyone else that an auto conversion is "wrong" for them. Auto > Conversions are way past the "pull it out of a junkyard and fire it up" > state of the art now and there ARE some viable alternatives out there. Not > to you, and that's OK. But to others they are viable alternatives. Then again aero engines are designed to operate in aircraft and have the max torque at rated rpm/hp. I think it is a personal comfort zone for me to know that I have a non experimental engine in an experimental aircraft. > > Again, I'm not arguing your choice of the 540 if it's what you want to use > for whatever reasons. I certainly don't disagree that when you change from > what's in the plans it's going to cause more work. I mostly jumped in > because of an earlier comment (not from you) to the effect that if you use > an auto engine you will die. In any aircarft (certified or experimental, auto engien or aero engine one can die. He obviously makes it sound as if he is not a pilot and has most probably never experienced an engine failure to know that the engine is not the culprit for deat in accidents and that it is mainly PILOT ERROR. > > If that's so, then there are a lot of ghosts flying around out there. :-) Oh yes, for sure. > > John Stricker > Well I hope I can in future report on my findings on selecting the O-540 and create a reliable installation. Kind regards, Jannie From: "Alpha" Subject: COZY: Auto Engines Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:07:03 -0500 George, Didn't I see your name on the Sun-N-Fun forum list concerning auto/rotary engines? Care to tease us with more of your experiences here? Jim Brewer Albemarle, NC Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:27:29 -0500 (EST) From: "George A. Graham" Subject: Re: COZY: Mazda RX-7 Auto Engines On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Alpha wrote: > Didn't I see your name on the Sun-N-Fun forum list concerning auto/rotary > engines? Yep, 9 AM Monday - Contact Auto Engine tent. > Care to tease us with more of your experiences here? Well Jim, It did take me a while to get the cooling right, as I insisted on keeping everything aft of the firewall (Ron Gowans RX-7 powered Long EZ has a small radiator in the nose, a nice heater). Now it cools fine at full throttle climbout with OAT of 65 F. We'll see how it does in Florida. Most of my cooling problems were really plumbing problems, air bubbles and too much flow restriction. It starts easily using a small garden tractor battery ( I can hand prop it also, which was a surprise with a 2.21 PSRU ). I have a ten lb. stainless exhaust with muffler like Tracy Crooks, so it is quiet. It does put a little soot on the prop from the oil I mix with the fuel. You can see some snapshots of it at my homepage I'm working on. George Graham RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E From: Todd Carrico Subject: RE: COZY: Auto engines: the final word. Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:25:07 -0800 I thought I would add my .02.   When you build an Experimental, I believe you are running several "Experiments". 1. Airframe 2. Engine 3. Prop 4. Prop/Engine Combination.   If you are using a certified engine (With all of its certified accessories), then this is not an experiment.   Being that we are building a pusher, I think it is very arguable that we are running an engine experiment.  The pusher configuration loads the case differently than a tractor.   Then their is the Prop.  I read somewhere that if you were not using a Prop that was originally certified on that engine in any certified airplane, then you are running a prop experiment as well.   I am very aware that these engines have been performing in this capacity for a lot of trouble free hours.   What I have noticed is that the Automobile conversions used to be done to save money.  What I have seen recently is a move toward using Automotive engines to make a better engine.  Only time will tell if that is possible.  Autoengines are engineered for a different purpose than aircraft engines.  If you are going to try an Auto Conversion, you are in for a lot of engineering.  But I would not start writing your obituary.   Several people have successfully converted Auto Powerplants for aviation.  If you like the challenge, and are "engineer" minded, then by all means conduct your experiment.   Just don't call it a Cozy .   tc Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:47:22 -0500 From: "Johnson, Phillip" Subject: COZY: Interesting Observation With the sad demise of Uri Wolters Cosy Classic resulting from a bad seal in a Lycoming, I noticed general acceptance of this failure from within the group. I wonder what hell an damn nation would have been hailed had that Cosy been power by an auto conversion. Phillip Johnson From: DougSheph@aol.com Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:32:46 EST Subject: Re:COZY:Interesting observation Phillip Johnson said: > I wonder what hell an damn nation would have been hailed had that Cosy been power by an auto conversion. My $0.02 worth: You're probably right, an auto-conversion powered plane would have been roundly condemned as unsafe at any speed by some of the rabid defenders of 'What Is Right'. (And by the way, let's not include Nat or anybody else officially involved with the plane in that group. They have absolute moral and legal obligations to encourage us to build planes exactly the way they've tested them, to limit their ethical and legal liabilities -- so cut them some slack!) On the other hand, it's equally foolish to deny that the Lycoming has some powerful points in its favor. It's a truly time-tested design which puts out a good amount of highly reliable power at an rpm appropriate for a prop-driven airplane, with power-to-weight and power-to-volume ratios that are pretty hard to beat, even with far more modern designs. That proven reliability is an important thing to me, and that factor alone would be enough to convince me to use a Lycoming, at least until the airframe of my plane has proven itself (which will be a while, since I'm still building bulkheads). Even the most careful first flight is a somewhat risky proposition, and I'd like to minimize every possible risk I can until I have some confidence in the overall system. THEN other risks (like unproven engine designs) can be isolated and the risk involved in testing them minimized. That said, this is experimental aviation, and if you, your family, your insurance company, and the authorities all agree that first flight with an auto conversion powerplant is an acceptable risk, by all means have at it. You might just be the one to knock the Lycoming off the top of the hill. Maybe when I get to the point where I'm ready to install an engine, there will be one more proven, reliable, economical alternative. I think it's important to remember that Burt Rutan didn't initially support Nat's effort to produce a side-by-side Long EZ. Nat assumed that risk for himself, because he wanted a new type of plane bad enough to shoulder that responsibility. After Nat had finished his first plane, had more or less proven the plane to be airworthy, and was clearly not interested in implicating Rutan in any liability risks, Burt showed some interest in the project. If we feel that kind of courage in our convictions, and if we're willing to assume the risks of the positions we put ourselves in, it's a matter of personal choice how we build our planes. Just don't expect Burt, Nat, or anybody officially connected with the product to endorse or condone your actions -- they can't. And please, PLEASE make your family swear that they won't sue Nat, Burt or anybody else if your own stupidity or lack of experience gets you killed! Doug Shepherd From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:25:26 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Interesting Observation Was said Uli is the designer of the Cosy Classic, The plane that crashed was one of the first COZY III's built, here in the United States by Uli, and the relocated (I don't know if it flew across the Atlantic, or was shipped) to Germany. Nothing is perfect, the best we can do, is minimize the risk!, which means special effort, and taking advantage of every possible information and experience available. In this case installation of an easy to install, inexpensive parts. THis issue is well documented in the archives. My Cosy had the retainers installed shortly after engine installation, well before the engine was even started here at home. A few people enjoy building to the point of building many planes, the majority build to have a fine flying machine. In line with that thinking, I challenge any auto engine powered to do better time wise to enjoying the benefits of a fine cross country flying machine: 10/31/93 - Trailered aircraft to the airport. 11/19/93 - FAA issued airworthiness cretificate 12/19/93 - Completed 40 hours test time, and took my wife for a ride with scattered snow showers in area, she wanted to know when we were going to Florida (from Cleveland, Ohio. 12/27/93 - one stop enroute for fuel, and plane was in Sarasota Florida. 47.3 hours total time on airframe. Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:08:45 -0500 From: Bulent Aliev Subject: Re: COZY: Interesting Observation Phillip, you just don't argue with perfection. This proven design comes with monthly list of very expensive AD's and still is the best thing going. Even the brand new ones are not immune. The new Cessna 172's had to be grounded due to engine problems? > With the sad demise of Uri Wolters Cosy Classic resulting from a bad > seal in a Lycoming, I noticed general acceptance of this failure from > within the group. I wonder what hell an damn nation would have been > hailed had that Cosy been power by an auto conversion. > > Phillip Johnson From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: COZY: Alternate engines Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:16:47 -0600 Builders, I hate to see all this arguing going on about alternate engines. Let those builders who wish to prove alternate engines do their work. If we keep their friendship, maybe they will report back to all of us, like the Leon brothers have done, and we can all benefit from their experiments. Van Gruesven told me one time that some RV builders were installing alternate engines, but wouldn't supply him with enough information to judge whether their installations were successful. If we criticize our fellow builders, they may not let us know how their installations turn out. There are two ways to learn, from your own experience and the experience of others. I would rather learn from the experience of others. Wouldn't you? Nat Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:14:56 -0600 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Interesting Observation Bulent Aliev, re "The new Cessna 172's had to be grounded due to engine problems?" True. These derated 0360's have had an intermittent problem with piston pin plugs scrapping the side of the cylinder, causing excessive wear in very short time. The reason as to why is unknown (or has not been made public). Lycoming has changed the aluminum plug to an aluminum/bronze plug with a different retaining system. The problem has occurred with some factory overhauled engines also. Why this is occurring now is a mystery. There are many engines that have been operating for more than a decade and have not had the problem. Flying is a calculated risk. No matter how careful one strives to be, things can and do occasionally go wrong. It happens to everyone who spends time aloft. My theory on all this is very simple - keep the odds in your favor, relative to what you are doing, whenever and wherever possible. While we all have an urge to come up with something better, there is a practical side to all this in that something different is not necessarily something better. You guys who are bent on converting an auto engine can improve your risk factor by not trying to reinvent what's already been invented. There are auto engine conversions that have worked fairly well after much trial and error. Some have not. Back in the 30's, pilots were flying airplanes with Ford engines from the Model A and T. In those days ALL aircraft engines were quite unreliable by today's standards. Reliability improved with design improvements in aircraft engines, not auto engine conversions. The design environments of the two engine concepts are not compatible and never will be. But the dream of a reliable engine for $2500 and pilots who believe it possible are compatible. And hence, after some 90 years of aircraft history, we still have men working on it. The risk factor is relevant to what a one is doing and his/her perspective of it. Some perceive much risk in experimental flying machines and can not accept it. Some of us have a different point of view and do accept it. The same applies to aircraft engines vrs auto engine conversions. We make our own odds, access the risks and get on with it. That's what makes this effort so interesting. There's enough spice in it to satisfy a wide range of tastes. dd From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:53:23 -0600 Subject: Re: COZY: Alternate engines Nat wrote: >If we criticize our fellow builders, they may not let us know how their >installations turn out. There are two ways to learn, from your own >experience and the experience of others. I would rather learn from the >experience of others. Very well said Nat! Just to add my $0.00 worth: If the Wright Brothers and many many other engine experimenters hadn't taken the time and RISK to do their own thing and report their experiences, we certainly would not have Lycomings, Continentals, Wrights, Merlins, 1/2 VWs and many other 'generally acceptable' aircraft engines today. And, likewise, if folks like Nat and many many others hadn't taken the RISK to experiment on airframe variations, we would not have the variety of airframe choices available today. Some experimenters, like Nat, do so for the potential future monetary benefit. Some, like Phil and many others, do it because they are convinced there is an alternative to the 'norm' and are not interested in getting rich off their work. That choice is as individual as the source of thoughts behind the inspirations. There is no logical reason to think that one has any 'better' experiences to share or sell than the other... just a different means of distribution. We can learn from both. The true value is not in what (or even 'if') we pay for the information related to someone else's experiences; but, rather in what we each do with it after we have it. So much for Philosophy - 102 :-) Larry Schuler MK-IV plans #500 Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:10:41 -0600 From: Carlos Leon Subject: COZY: alternate engine For an alternate engine installation see TWIN COZY: http://www.infortel.com/cozy From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 07:12:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Engine storage On 04/03/99 11:23:08 you wrote: > >Just purchased an 0320 E2A for my Cosy Classic. It came from a flying A/C >so I may put it straight in, but I am still 1.5 years from completion. What >is the best way to preserve it? Should I take the cylinders of anyway to >store it? >Thanks in advance. >Happy Easter >Richard Goodwin > > > > > I have seen many engines here in Northern Ohio survive with no action. Looking at the Lycoming Operator's manual (you should get one plus the parts and service manuals, you will eventually need them), the main items are dehydrator plugs, change oil to special preservative, run engine, spray through sparkplug hole with same oil, drain fuel, keep dry, and don't turn the crank. Where are you located, high humidity, salt air? if so probably special precautions needed, check with local mechanic. Check archives for several of my postings on books to buy, etc. From: "Ernesto Sanchez" Subject: Re: COZY: Engine storage Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 11:18:19 -0800 Search the RV list site below for engine storage info. It's very good. +-------------------------------------------------------------------------- The RV-List is sponsored by Matronics, makers of fine Aircraft Avionics, and by the generous Contributions of List members. +-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Related Web Sites: Matronics: http://www.matronics.com RV-List: http://www.matronics.com/rv-list List Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe Archive Search Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search Archive Browsing: http://www.matronics.com/archives List Support Contributions: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Other Email Lists: http://www.matronics.com/other +-------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Todd Carrico Subject: RE: COZY: What to do? Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:52:06 -0700 I don't remember the exact procedure, but running full throttle isn’t it. Breaking in an engine, and flight testing your bird are two very different things and should be treated differently. As I recall, if you have Chrome cylinders you are supposed to do things a little differently than if you have steel. Millennium Cyl's are steel and should be broken in the same. AC engines will always consume oil. If they are not consuming some oil, then you are either out of oil, or the engine is too tight. The later will correct itself. Some people may brag about zero oil consumption. IMHO they won't make TBO either. Find a test stand, and follow the recommendations in the overhaul manual. If it has chrome jugs, find out who did them and ask them for recommended procedures for break in. The effort you put in now will pay off later. My Humble Opinion tc -----Original Message----- From: R & N To: cozy_builders@canard.com Sent: 4/19/99 10:38 AM Subject: COZY: What to do? I am thinking of purchasing an 0-360 Lycoming engine that has recently been overhauled and has zero hours on it. I was wondering if anyone in the group has done the same thing. I know that in order to "break in" an engine it must be run full throttle until it ceases using oil. Now the tricky bit. I was thinking that someone may have already solved the problem of how to do that without outting on an airplane that was already airworthy. If you've done this and have a solution, I would appreciate hearing from you. My thought was to put the engine on a testing stand and run it. There may be some better ideas out there. Let me hear from you. Regards, Randel Livingood Cozy Mark IV -- N727RN (Reserved) http://www.members.home.net/doognivil/index.html From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:58:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: What to do? A recently overhauled engine has several concerns 1: Yes the engine should be run at high power settings after several brief runs on the ground at lower power settings. The rings are terribly fickle with seating, and even when properly done the breaking yields a real oil burner (1 hour per qt. or less). The breakin should be per the cylinder overhauler (chrome, or whatever), and ring manufacturer and Lycoming instructions. 2: An important issue, is who overhauled the engine, what did they do, is the paperwork (you should have a serviceable tag, or with new parts a tag indicating the model useage etc.) work orders, all in neat understandable order. A logbook entry of the status of all service letters A.D's, etc. This is mandatory, when new service orders are issued, you can review the records and make a simple log book entry in many cases. 3: What was really done to the engine? Did the crank, rods, case, etc. go to a certified engine repair station with proper gauges, etc. for proper inspection. An overhaul is spelled out in detail in Lycoming documents, which parts are to be replaced, and how to inspect the rest. The inspection is beyond the ability of a backyard mechanic - magnaflux and other non- destructive testing, dimensional tolerance of cases, cranks and rods is nearly impossible without the specialize gauges. Were accessories overhauled? Only certified repair stations can do accessory overhauls. Others can only repair. 4: 4 years ago it cost me $7000 to overhaul my IO-320, not including any accessories. $700 was for inspection at Clydesdale Aircraft Engine, $1000 for the certified mechanic who I worked with, and the rest was new parts, including chromed rebuilt cylinders. From: "Reid Siebert" Subject: COZY: Engine Break-In Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 17:49:26 -0500 Hi Dave, Average engine break-in takes about 50 hours. During this period Lycoming recommends that you don't exceed a density altitude of 5000 ft. Any higher than this there is not enough pressure in the cylinders to force the rings tight against the walls, and glazing can result. Keep an engine power setting of at least 65%, in cruise, for the same reasons. A drop in oil usage from what you had at the start of break-in usually signals that the rings have seated. Reid Siebert A&P, Cozy Building in Illinois, Seawind Building in the Florida Keys Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 12:10:30 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: COZY: Engine of the future . . . Darryl Phillips and associates at the Quiet Revolution Motor Company have been working on Stirling engines for aircraft applications. If you'd like to plug in to their progress, bookmark their site at: http://www.qrmc.com There's an intersting explanation of the Stirling cycle engine complete with animated illustration you can check out at: http://www.qrmc.com/animationtext.htm Here's a chance to get rid of fuel injection systems, carburetors, and run an airplane on a truly multifuel engine that has almost zero exhaust noise and performs BETTER as you go up in altitude. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < Independence Kansas: the > < Jurassic Park of aviation. > < Your source for brand new > < 40 year old airplanes. > ================================= http://www.aeroelectric.com Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 22:33:51 -0500 From: Bulent Aliev Subject: COZY: [Fwd:Alternative Engines, Powersport Rotary]] Hi guys, I thought you two would be interested in this PowerSport Rotory update. It was just posted to the RV list. Charlie --> RV-List message posted by: Chris Armstrong A very interesting thread on alternative engines. As a member of the development team of Powersport Aviation's, rotary engine program I have been experiencing first hand what it takes to do an engine conversion right. This is an engine and evolved reduction drive that has 10 years and over 1000 flight hours in an RV-3 and an RV-4, with remarkable performance. Our work now is to take it from a very successful development program to a production program, and improve on the development version where ever possible. We are replacing the Mallory infrared sensor, fixed timing ignition and Airflow Performance constant flow fuel injection system with an MBE magnetic pick-up dual redundant full authority electronic engine management system and pulsed flow electronic fuel injectors to improve fuel economy and performance (and in our opinion reliability). We are replacing the butterfly valve throttles with a carbon fiber flat plate slide throttle to improve top end performance and increase producability. We are improving the reduction drive by incorporating a spline to allow for the unavoidable variability in Mazda engine cores, and Isolate the thrust forces in the gearbox from the engine. We have also gone to paired sets of angular contact ball bearings to carry radial and thrust loads in place of the bushings on the development version to increase the load capacity and life of the gearbox. All this costs time and money, but is what it takes to build an Aircraft Engine from an Automobile Engine. In direct response to some of the previous posts: We will not be using a thermostat. They are used in cars to allow for a very fast warm up and to cover the broad range of power usage. In aircraft we are careful to warm our engines, and we operate at a consistently high power setting for the vast majority of flight. We are considering an electric "taxi fan" for those long hot day back taxis. More likely we will use an automatic cowl flap to control cooling at low speed. I think that the prop can be considered an engine driven fan! The rotary engine is cooled 2/3 by the coolant and 1/3 by the oil. A loss of water pump or a coolant leak will not immediately disable a rotary. The rotors are iron and the housing are aluminum, just the opposite of Lycoming engines. As engine temperatures rise, the iron rotor expands less then the aluminum housing increasing clearances, and preventing seizure. An overheating rotary will lose power as clearances increase and the seals backing springs loose temper the seals start to leak, but the engine will not seize. So the rotary does have a somewhat redundant cooling system and continues to run even when overheated. We will be using dual belts on the water pump and alternator, and a backup battery, separate from the starting/standard operation battery, sized to run all engine systems for over 1 hour. The oil pump is chain driven and is very reliable. In comparison to the O-360, the Powersport engine is around 30 pounds lighter, 20 HP more powerful, less then 2/3 the cost, is water cooled and has substantially smaller frontal area, which allows for reduced airframe, and cooling drag and increased propeller performance. Alan Tole's RV-3 and Everett Hatch's RV-4 both demonstrated drastically improved performance over comparable aircraft, including an IO-360 equipped RV that had been dyno tested at over 220 HP. Clearly the aerodynamic and weight advantages of the engine are very significant. What is the fully equipped ready to run weight of an 0-360 is, as opposed to the listed dry weight of 257 pounds? How about the cost after adding all the stuff they don't supply standard with the engine: an alternator, a fuel pump, an oil filter, and inlet air box and filter, a starter, or an exhaust system... We are currently developing a firewall forward package for our nearly completed RV-6A. Our second FWF package will be our Glastar, which is under construction. Another plane that is nearly ready for installation is our first customers Velocity. The RV-6A will be on display at Oshkosh (errr AirVenture) this year. Props will be tested on the ground and in flight and we will make a recommendation when we have found the best solution for each aircraft. We are designing the gear box to 250 HP with straight cut gears and designing in an upgrade capability to helical gears that will allow 350 HP. The high performance version of our engine (Turbot among other things) will be developed after the 200 HP version is in volume production. Chris Armstrong Project Engineer Powersport Aviation Below is an update prepared by our engine designer: Powersport June Update The past few months have been very busy at the Powersport hanger in Osceola. We have spent a great deal of time engineering components, solid modeling them, searching for qualified suppliers, and fine tuning the product concept that we will deliver. We have acquired an RV-6A for construction of our first firewall-forward product. In addition to this we have been working the extra hours to try and make Oshkosh with a representative sample of what we intend to provide our potential customers. Morale is very positive because we have improved the original design considerably, and added to the performance, functions, and reliability of the original Hatch concept. I would like to take the time to describe our vision of what the Powersport firewall-forward concept will be. The original internal gear concept is retained in the production Powersport concept, but we have provided additional tooth width to strengthen the gear. This does some very significant things for us. First of all we are now able to insure that the set will be able to take the loads of the future supercharged engines we are planning. Secondly, the reliability has been dramatically improved. We will talk about this at the completion of our 500-hour ground test program. The gear-set stiffness has been improved to ensure that the natural frequency of the system is high enough to avoid resonance in the operating range of the engine. (Idle to 6000 revs.) When we improved the gear-set we also in fact changed the gear housing that was used to mount the set. We took this opportunity to increase the strength to weight ratio on this part, and were able to incorporate an oil sump for the gear/bearing set. This allows us to run the optimum oil for the reduction gear, without being constrained to the engine oil. It also allows us to run our own mechanical lubrication pump within the housing. The gear oiling system will be able to provide lubrication and pinion gear cooling at all attitudes. We are using finite element modeling to check the housing for distortion under load to assure that our high precision gear set maintains the appropriate alignment under the most severe loading conditions. We are using the Solidworks program to model the entire system. Another phase of the program is to develop a redundant engine management system. Powersport has teamed up with the staff of MBE systems in England to provide our customers with a custom designed Electronic Fuel Injection/Ignition system. This system is specifically designed to offer double redundancy on all critical sensor sites, and in the electrical system that powers it. The system will be capable of operating for periods in excess of an hour on the battery backup alone (alternator failure). The system offers the rotary engine customer improved fuel economy, by providing closed loop feedback to dual computers for appropriate in flight fuel trimming. In effect, the computer modules are continuously adjusting fuel flow to provide the best brake specific fuel consumption available. The pilot will have single lever control of the throttle for ease of operation. Of course the system will adjust for temperature, barometric pressure (altitude), dirties air filters, engine temperature, system voltage, etc. The system will also feature spark plug mounted coils. The advantage of these is that they have a positive connection to the spark plug, and effectively eliminate any external high-tension leads. This is better for wiring harness durability and noise suppression. The really nice feature of an extensively mapped engine like this is that the engine doesnt care what propeller the customer bolts on. The system will sense the load line and adjust fuel and ignition timing automatically! Thus allowing the customer to experiment with different pitches etc. In the future the system will also control the wastegate on the supercharger for increased power on takeoff. Perhaps this will make the need for an expensive constant speed propeller less apparent. Speaking of propellers, we have made provisions in the design for constant speed propellers. Initial testing will begin with a propeller from Global Aircraft Corporation. We have received the first sample of their Quasi-Constant Speed (QCS) propeller. This concept seems to be a very good trade-off for us in the debate over fixed-pitch simplicity and multi-mode efficiency. We plan to test traditional constant speed units in the future. However, we will not provide the F-flange until we have extensively tested the system for damaging torsional resonance. This really is not unlike the rest of the program. We have committed to providing a thoroughly engineered engine alternative and will not take a dime from anyone until we are sure that we have done our job responsibly, and correctly. We are doing revolutionary things here at Powersport, but we do not wish to risk our customers lives and our reputation. Other developments include the mounting and packaging of the system in an RV-6A airframe. We are developing focalized engine mounts to isolate the engine vibration from the airframe. We are also working to design a more aerodynamic cowl that better fits our engine application. The system will also incorporate the cooling system, electrical charging system, air intake/throttle system, and exhaust system. In effect the Powersport customer will just have to bolt up the cage / engine, plumb the fuel, wire the electrical power, and start his pre-tested engine. We will keep you as a potential customer informed of our progress, and ask for your patience. We intend to begin shipping first samples on or before January of this year. We are costing the package as we complete the installation, and will update this information as well. Respectfully, Steve Weinzierl Engineering Manager-Powersport Aviation Christopher Armstrong Project Engineer Powersport Aviation sales@powersport.com tophera@centuryinter.net (715) 294-2557 work (715) 294-2558 FAX (715) 294-3282 home office (715) 294-4730 home Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:41:51 -0400 From: Brian Freitag Subject: COZY: engine talk Hello gang, I know there has been talk about the difference between lyc and cont. engines before but I am knew to this list and I missed some of the talk, So for a quik recap....... Did anybody ever put a IO-360 continentel on a cozy? and what are the pros and cons of cont. v.s. lyc./ Thanks in advance Brian #094 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:38:55 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: engine talk Brian, re "Did anybody ever put a IO-360 continental on a cozy?" I did a little research on the subject some years ago.....seems to me I decided not to pursue it because the Continental 0360 was longer, heavier, and most of them had a turbo. It really did not make much sense to do all the development work with the Lyc 0360 already up and running. Also, it is my opinion the Lyc is a bit more reliable than the Cont. dd From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:16:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: COZY: Engine purchase Was said <2100 hours total time) This was a 360, which I can't address, but for a 320, I wouldn't run more than something less than 1800 hours on the exhaust valves, even if it means swapping out the valves sometime before that. They are notorious for having valves coming apart, I lost one in Southeast Georgia with 1990 hours on it. Replaced the cylinder assembly, got home, and majored the engine. One other valve had major cracks in it, a ticking time bomb. There are some shops that offer non-certified overhauled engines. I question how the can furnish a good engine at major cost savings. The rebuilding and certifying of parts to the manufacturer's instructions is important. The certification includes non-destructive testing like magnaflux and verifying dimensions. This is done with custom gages and fixtures which have been checked for accuracy within recent time. For my 320 overhaul, which I helped a certified mechanic 5 years ago with everything done per the book with an agreement with the mechanic at start, everyhing he wanted to do, we would do, and beyond that anything I wanted that would be better (at a price) also would be done. The cost breakdown was this: New Parts $2813 Cylinder overhaul $1073 Engine shop rebuilding & certification of case, rods, crank, rockers, etc. $ 646 Labor $ 840 Total $5372 Most accessories had less than 100 hours since new or overhauled, and were reinstalled. There were a few minor parts that I supplied that were not included above. Today all those costs would be somewhat higher, but would be proportional. Probably today this would add at least $1200. New parts - whatever deal you can get, I got 10% discount from the mechanic, make sure each part has a OEM or PMA tag indicating application. This will be the biggest increase in cost. Cylinder overhaul: this was chrome, new guides, valve seats should be similar cost today. Engine Shop - COnsidering this is the major difference from a non-certified engine, its small money, and there is the actual work of cleaning, rebushing rods and rockers, in addition to the actual certification. Labor - This was cheap, I actually did most of the work with the mechanic either helping or looking over my shoulder, but includes excellent paperwork trail, ordering shipping and recieving parts sent out. While flight instructing, he flew the parts to the engine shop for nothing, to expedite, I flew safety pilot for an IFR training flight in a Mooney to pick the parts up. The plane was out of service 5 weeks. Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 10:07:21 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Less blue.... Vance, re "2950 rpm at 2000'...." I haven't had the nerve to do it with my 0360 (I have one mag spinning back there) but I did run my LEZ with a 0235 at 3000 rpm and it did not seem to mind. Burt once said at a grass briefing he thought it no big deal with a light weight well balanced wood prop. I sometimes wonder though about the gear train in the accessory section..... I have the Millennium cylinders also, and I think the rings seated almost immediately, Mike Rachanski at Blue Print, the guy who overhauled my engine, said he always hones new cylinders to get rid of the manufacturing ridges that cause the need for the break in procedure. You can feel them in a new cylinder with your finger nails. When those ridges are smoothed out, either by a hard run or honing, the rings seat. I am also using AVblend (snake oil to some of you guys). Mike's company manufacures the stuff for aviation and the racing world, and he said to me very quietly, lots of guys laugh at me about this stuff, but it works. The basis of their 3 year, 1000 hour warranty is AVblend. I think it is good stuff in any engine. It essentially prevents a dry start. dd From: Wayne Hicks Subject: COZY: Engine Builder Reference? Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:17:32 -0400 Hey gang: 1. Anyone familiar with the reputation of engine rebuilder T.W. Smith? 2. Any pros and cons of an IO-360-C1C, other than the pratfalls of wide deck, angle valved, 35-pound weight difference, and hollow crank for constant-speed prop? ____________________________________________________ L. Wayne Hicks Space Operations Division Sr. Engineer Zel Technologies, LLC 757-865-0900 phone 3221 North Armistead Ave 757-865-8960 fax Hampton, VA 23666 http://www.zeltech.com From: jhocut@mindspring.com Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:01:54 -0400 Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Builder Reference? 1. Anyone familiar with the reputation of engine rebuilder T.W. Smith? T W Smith went bankrupt several months ago, and I had assumed that they were out of business. I know two people (one I know personally, the other is a friend of a friend) who had work done by TW Smith, neither has kind words for them. Jim From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:15:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Builder Reference? IF you are close to Ohio, I would recommend Clydesdale Engines in Columbus, Ohio. Several friends have had good results, I used them to inspect, certifiy and rebuild connecting rods, rocker bushings, etc. Work was done properly and timely, at equitable prices. Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 01:29:05 -0400 Subject: COZY: Engines: O-320 @180 hp? From: Dana Hill Recently looked at the Penn Yan Aero web site and it described a service they provide for the STC'd conversion of a certain type of O-320 used in 172's to 180 HP. Has anyone heard of this and could this be a good alternative for a Cozy IV engine? I've requested further info from them and I'll pass it along when they get back to me. D. Hill CZ #676 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:26:01 -0400 Subject: COZY: RE: Engines/ Weight/cost of Superhawk conversion From: Dana Hill With regards to my previous email to the group regarding the Penn Yan Aero conversion of 172 Cessna's to 180 hp from the 160 hp O-320 engine I provide the following email clarification from them. I'm still not to clear on this issue. If we could convert an O-320 to an O-360 it would be a great additional option but seems improbable. Comments? Dana Hill CZ #676 Ch 6, 7 --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hill-EQE, Dana" (Dana Hill) To: Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:43:56 EDT Subject: fwd: Re: Weight/cost of Superhawk conversion Message-ID: ---------- Original Text ---------- From: , on 08/25/1999 2:29 PM: To: ISMTPOutBound@itd.w4@servers["Hill-EQE, Dana" ] Dana, Sorry for the confusion! If you have a 172 with an O-320-D2J or O-320-E2D engine, we can convert the engine into and O-360. This is not a souped up 320, it's actually a 360 when we get done with it. It's a much cheaper option than factory new and the warranty is better also. All O-360 engines are 180hp. There are some IO-360 engines which are 180-200hp. What you probably read about was the new 172 engine which is an IO-360 that has been de-rated to 160hp. (turns slower) Let me know if you have any questions. I know it's a challange figuring all this out! Bill Middlebrook Penn Yan Aero From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:30:52 -0500 (CDT) Subject: COZY: Oil Leak Does anyone know on a 320 with Bendix S4ln-21 magnetos, is there a shaft seal for engine oil behind the impulse that could leak more than a little bit of oil, say a 1/2 cup/hour? Is this seal part of the bearing, or a separate part? Where would this oil leak out of the mag, or show itself? From: "John Slade" Subject: COZY: Alternate engines Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:28:26 -0400 Builders, There seems to be a ground swell of movement into alternate engines lately. Mazda rotary and Subaru are both being fitted (and in some cases flown) in Cozy's and Velocity's. There are even Cozy mounting designs on the net. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ and http://www.monito.com/wankel/aircraft.html seem like good places to start. Personally I'm against reciprocal auto engines per se, but I think the rotary approach sounds very interesting. Here are a few pro's... 1. large production = reduced installation and maintenance cost 2. Fewer moving parts = reduced possibility of catastrophic failure 3. Twin rotors with independant fuel & spark = "redundant engine". 4. More power for less weight = increased efficiency I've chatted privately with numerous builders who are either moving in this direction or playing "wait & see". Yes. I've read the intro in Chap 23, but this was written many years ago. Since then our "intrepid leader" has "experimented" with a Franklin and technology has moved forward [except at Lycoming]. Yes. Any experimentation of this nature has to be done very carefully and systematically and yes, it will probably add significant time to the project. But, having said that ..... Any thoughts or comments??? John Slade http://kgarden.com/cozy From: Epplin John A Subject: RE: COZY: Alternate engines Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:54:23 -0500 > -----Original Message----- > From: John Slade [SMTP:rjslade@bellsouth.net] > > Personally I'm against reciprocal auto engines per se, but I think the > rotary approach sounds very interesting. Here are a few pro's... > > [Epplin John A] I'll bite on this one. Having some close experience with the Wankel engine, I would not put one on anything that needed more than 25 percent power continuously! The engine has some serious design flaws. I know several have been flown successfully, I also know of many failures at low time. The failures usually go from a perfectly running engine to junk in a few minutes. Not what you want in an aircraft at night over water or any time or place. Take a look at the surface of the rotor tip seal, it has some sort of radius, now look at the surface it must seal against. It has a varying radius, only a fine line of contact is possible with this arrangement. The contact pressure is quite high to effect a seal, even with good lubrication metal to metal contact will ultimately result. When this happens engine failure is quite rapid. Another problem is the wetted area in the combustion chamber. This hurts the efficiency considerably. Also the temperature difference around the engine is a problem, the engine changes shape with power output. On the positive side, the power per pound, torque curve, vibration and smoothness are excellent when the engine is operating correctly. Pay you price, take you choice. That's what we cherish in this country! John Epplin Mk4 #467, Lycosoraus powered. With electronic ignition and TB injection. From: Militch@aol.com Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:23:17 EDT Subject: Re: COZY: Alternate engines In a message dated 9/28/99 6:04:22 PM, rjslade@bellsouth.net wrote: >There seems to be a ground swell of movement into alternate engines lately. >Mazda rotary and Subaru are both being fitted (and in some cases flown) in >Cozy's and Velocity's. There are even Cozy mounting designs on the net. > A friend of mine used to hot up rotary engines for street use. They make a lot of power, but we learned in a hurry that they are not thermally very efficient. As a result, exhaust components used to get white hot after just a few minutes at high power and gas mileage was poor for a given power output compared to a reciprocating engine. There is a reason that all the exhaust parts on a rotary are made out of "magic metal" (my term for the high nickel alloys that seem to tolerate amazing temperatures). Also, the noise of an unmuffled or poorly muffled rotary is something to hear - it's painful. If you want a quiet plane, either for the pilot's benefit or to be kind to those below, I expect you would have to provide for a muffler system. So, with a radiator, muffler and reduction unit to add weight and volume, and gas consumption that can be on the high side, plus the cost of a reliable speed reduction unit, it seems to me that rotary power is unlikely to save enough money to make it worthwhile. Peter Militch Cozy Mk IV #740 Chapter 7 From: "Alpha" Subject: COZY: Rotary engines Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:57:06 -0400 Gang, A little food for thought about rotary engines to balance a previous post. Tracy Crook had 800 hours on a Mazda engine in a RV6 when it was removed for PSRU replacement (bearing wear). His airplane was at AirVenture99 for all to see. Several other flying aircraft have used this engine successfully. In a recent post, Paul Lamar wrote about his visit to the Wankel factory in Germany in the past 30 days. "BTW a one rotor version of this engine was on the dyno when I was at the factory. It had just completed the FAA 150 hour certification test with flying colors. Piece of cake." A few numbers from the dyno data. At 28KW (37 HP) it was burning 264 grams per KW/hour and at 35KW (47 HP) it was burning 285 grams per KW/hour. I believe that is slightly under 0.47 pounds per BHP/hour. But who cares in Europe. Diesel fuel is half price due to much lower taxeson diesel fuel. BTW One HP is .745 KW. Water inlet temp was 39C and outlet temp was 81C. Charge air temp out of the turbo was 94C and out of the intercooler it was 40C. Oil cooled rotor plain bearings. Part number DVLDE-407-SDT. Paul Lamar The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter. Powered by Linux. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ http://www.linux.org Jim Brewer Albemarle, NC Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:54:02 -0700 From: Steve Hagan Subject: Re: COZY: Alternate engines How about the DeltaHawk disel engine? When I spoke with them at Oshkosh it looked like the 225hp version would be out early next year. Per their website (http://www.deltahawkengines.com) it would be 50lbs lighter, and burn about 30% fewer GPH. Of course, Jet A is heavier than 100LL, so maybe that doesn't matter (so is weight a factor here?). Anyway, is anyone else looking at this engine? Is there anything that would invalidate its use in a Cozy? Steve Hagan chapter 5 ("so are you finished yet?") Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:36:16 -0400 From: bil kleb Subject: Re: COZY: Alternate engines Steve Hagan wrote: > > How about the DeltaHawk disel engine? When I spoke with them at Oshkosh > it looked like the 225hp version would be out early next year. unfortunately they say that every year... :( -- bil From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: Re: COZY: RE: Alternate Engines Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:32:46 -0500 Dear Phillip, Thank you for your comments. We hope your installation will be successful. You seem to be doing the most thorough job of any. Please keep us informed of your progress. If I might correct a wrong impression that you may have given, the prototype Mark IV first flew in 1988, and had almost 400 hours on it before we decided to sell plans. We started to accept deposits on the plans model in 1990, although it wasn't completed being designed and built until 1992. The only significant aerodynamic difference between the two was a slightly wider front seat. There were other improvements like better nosewheel hardware, better method of mounting the main gear, etc. It took longer to arrange for the aft c.g. flight testing than we expected, but we were able to accomplish it before any other Mark IVs were completed. We were embarrassed that we had to clip the canard span, but very grateful we tested the airplane with and without lower winglets. No one else had ever done this. Thank you for your confidence in buying plans before all this had been done. Regards, Nat ---------- > From: Johnson, Phillip > To: 'Cozy Mailing List' > Subject: COZY: RE: Alternate Engines > Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 3:21 PM > > Nat Writes: > > >The information that will be useful is the history after 500, 1000, and 2000 > hours in Cozy's. At the rate we are going, it doesn't appear that will > happen very soon. < > > Very true Nat but remember that the MK IV also does not have 500, 1000, > and 2000 hours on a single fuselage but there are over 500 people are > building them. The plans were being sold before even the first MK IV was > flying. I know that the design was based on the MK III but we have all > been told that even the smallest change is significant. I bought the > plans believing the plans were as solid as could be for a one man design > authority and I am still happy with my supposition. > > Everyone, at least I hope everyone, on this list is aware that alternate > engines add a significant risk to the project. Everyone has a different > risk threshold. Some people think that we are all crazy building an > aeroplane at all let alone go flying with an engine from a car. Accept > the fact that we all have differing objectives, issue words of caution > by all means, but do not kill the creative spirit that separated man > form the beast. > > > Phillip Johnson > > COZY MK IV RG Powered by Subaru EG33 (230 hp) > Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:02:55 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Alternate engines John, re "There seems to be a ground swell of movement into alternate engines lately. Mazda rotary and Subaru are both being fitted (and in some cases flown) in Cozy's and Velocity's. There are even Cozy mounting designs on the net." The ground has been swelling with alternate engines for at least 25 years and there still isn't anything on the horizon that makes sense, except maybe the new diesels. The LEZ builder I introduced to canard flying last week says he's almost ready to fly, but when I quizzed him a bit he admitted the engine overheats so badly during taxi tests he has to leave the cowlings off. I can't remember if it is a Mazda or Subaru engine. In either case, he has a big problem that will hold up his first flight indefinitely. It is my gut feeling, which is why I've not been interested in an auto engine, that the development costs are so high, it makes no sense economically to do it. And even if the effort is somewhat successful, specific fuel consumption, weight/hp, and overall reliability are not as good as what we have in an off the shelve, ready to fly Lycoming. I think that has already been proven in the Moony after much development cost. I guess I would 10 times rather be flying than trying to make some car engine work in an airplane. That's not to say I do not respect those of you working your butts off to make it work - it's just not my cup of tea. Look at it from this perspective. My Lycoming was built in 1981. It had never been disassembled, not even a top overhaul, until this past March. The tear down revealed that after some 1980 hours of service in a Cherokee and 60 hours in my Cozy, it did not need to be overhauled except for outstanding AD's. The crank was still in new limits, the pistons, rings, valves were all in very good condition. Even after sitting idle for 5 years, there was no corrosion. Why would I want to spend the better part of the rest of my life getting some car motor in my Cozy when the only reason I have an airplane is to fly it? (just my perspective and I'm not trying to sell it, only stating facts) The Lycoming 0320 and 0360 are tough, reliable, and very suited for what they were designed to do. In my STS resides one of the finest auto engines built today - the Northstar by GM. It is just 279 cubic inches, develops 300 hp, and delivers 21.5 mpg. I love it as much as the Lycoming in the Cozy, but I would never consider hanging it there any more than I would consider installing the Lycoming in the STS. These are 2 completely different worlds, quite well invented, and neither needs to be reinvented for the other. dd From: "John Slade" Subject: Re: COZY: Alternate engines Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:39:45 -0400 Hi David, >except maybe the new diesels. Yes, I've been watching them, but the Mazda also seems to be getting closer to practical. George Graham is flying his EZ/Cozy with a Mazda. >I can't remember if it is a Mazda or Subaru engine. In either case, he >has a big problem that will hold up his first flight indefinitely. I'd like to know which it is. > It is my gut feeling, which is why I've not been interested in an >auto engine, that the development costs are so high, it makes no sense >economically to do it. I don't think thats true any more, but I will investigate this carefully while I'm busy finishing my plane. There's a guy down here in Pompono who has modified a mazda for a cozy, made the mounting etc. I plan to talk to him. >specific fuel consumption, weight/hp, and overall reliability are not as >good as what we have in an off the shelve, ready to fly Lycoming. I know this is the rumor, but I dont see the evidence. In fact what I read tells me the opposite on all counts plus much reduced initial outlay and maintenance cost. > I guess I would 10 times rather be flying than trying to make some >car engine work in an airplane. Why would I want to spend the better >part of the rest of my life getting some car motor in my Cozy when the >only reason I have an airplane is to fly it? I agree entirely. However, if I can't fly anyway cause I can't afford a LYC, and a mazda can be fitted in a matter of weeks for less than $10k, then maybe I'll consider it. How much did your Lycoming cost? Where did you get it? How is the Cozy flying? Regards, John Slade Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:35:43 +0200 From: "Rego Burger" Subject: COZY: Alternate engines I have no choice, I am poor... :-) compared to a milionare... I am working on an Auto conversion because I like tinkering, and the cost can be absorbed on a monthly cash basis that I can afford. I would need a years take home salary to just buy a runout aero engine. My project has been two fold. a.) To build an aeroplane. b.) To build it for cash. Why must I pay the bank money that could purchase three aeroplanes for my one. I guess I hate paying interest. It has taught me patience though. sigh... different strokes for different folks... Régo Burger RSA From: Epplin John A Subject: RE: COZY: Alternate engines Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 07:55:21 -0500 A couple of comments concerning the subject. I started out thinking that a good old Chevrolet, Buick, Ford or whatever would be really neat. Save a ton of money initially and later at overhaul really save the bucks! Talked to several people that had gone the route, looked at a number of installations in various planes at OSH. Usually you got the same story, "Really works great, only had to spend and additional ton of cash for all the trick parts, forged pistons, crank, super valves, trick gizmos everywhere. Speed reduction devices etc. Got 300 hours on it and only had 3 minor failures, usually at least one of them resulting in an off field landing. To make this short, I got convinced I did not have the time, expertise, or the money to select the parts, build the engine and design the installation let alone do the needed testing to get any kind of confidence in the finished product. A rebuilt Lycoming looks mighty awesome, with some proven additions such as modern ignition and fuel delivery systems. Price is known going in, not many surprises usually. What happened to the Honda engine project? If I remember they got their V8 certified but did not pursue the production certificate. Another one that comes to mind is the group that was installing Porsche engines in Cessna's. Kind of disappeared somewhere. The new diesel engines look promising now that Renault is flying one and Continental is charging ahead somewhere on our money. The Delta Hawk engine looks really good to me, parts count is way down and some redundancy is there along with altitude performance. I gave up on Zoche long ago. The thought of burning Jet-A is somewhat comforting. Not worrying about the lead problem with 100LL which will eventually go away and its replacement yet to be developed. Just some rambling thoughts. John Epplin.. From: alwick@juno.com Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:38:46 -0700 Subject: Re: COZY: Alternate engines On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:02:55 -0500 David Domeier writes: > It is my gut feeling, which is why I've not been interested in an > auto engine, that the development costs are so high, it makes no sense > economically to do it. Like many things, development costs can be very high if you decide on custom system. Mine will be very low since I will be keeping my engine stock. Less than $5k total. > And even if the effort is somewhat successful, > specific fuel consumption, weight/hp, and overall reliability are not as > good as what we have in an off the shelve, ready to fly Lycoming. Exact opposite is true. You can get some excellent facts from www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html. Basically, the lyc engines are very poor at breathing. Subaru has more the double the volumetric efficiency. Check it out, This fact is just another indication of how modern technology has improved auto engines far behond the 1940's. Weight/hp is a wash. non-issue. Tough to get accurate info on auto conversions. Negatives to consider : - development time - risk related to your customizations (any change to Cozy design includes risk). - risk related to torsional vibration (low risk with rotary) So far I haven't encountered any negatives. That comes next year during extensive ground testing. But I like that type of stuff. regards -al wick Canopy Latch System guy. Artificial intelligence in Cockpit Cozy sn 389 driven by stock Subaru 2.5 ltr 103% complete, Aug 00 first flight sched.. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: COZY: Alternate engines Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:39:58 -0500 Builders, The pro and con arguments about alternate engines will never be settled. It is a debate that will never be won by either side. As far as I know, the only Cozy flying with auto engines is the one of the Leon brothers. I admire them for their candid reports on the internet and at our banquet in Oshkosh. What I wish to suggest is less talk and more FACTUAL reporting of the performance or auto engine conversions in Cozy Mark IV airplanes. We know of several Subaru engines being planned, but none flying yet. The information that will be useful is the history after 500, 1000, and 2000 hours in Cozys. At the rate we are going, it doesn't appear that will happen very soon. Best regards, Nat From: sdbish@juno.com Subject: COZY: Alternate engines Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:17:38 EDT There was a 3 place Cozy with, I believe, a Ford V6 engine at Sun and Fun some 7 years ago. Believe the owner was from Louisiana, Mississippi, or some where in that area. He had it for sale, and it may now be coverted back to an aircraft engine, or perhaps no longer flying. I spoke briefly with Nat about it at the time. Workmanship, IMHO, left something for the new owner to dol Marv Bishop --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- From: "Nat Puffer" To: Builders, . . . . As far as I know, the only Cozy flying with auto engines is the one of the Leon brothers. Best regards, Nat --------- End forwarded message ---------- ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From: alwick@juno.com Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 15:51:53 -0700 Subject: Re: COZY: Alternate engines On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:46:49 -0400 "John Slade" writes: > Interesting. Please tell more. What engine, mounting, cowling are you using? > When will it fly? > > John Slade My auto engine is 1996 Subaru 2.5 liter. Rated at 165 hp. EFI. An engine identical just passed 2000 hours on a gyro trainer. Totally stock, never a glitch. Owner has seen small decline in average compression since original benchmarks, but nothing else. Last I heard he was just going to replace engine since it only costs around $1500 (I paid $2500 2 years ago). This particular engine fits within the stock engine cover envelop, provided you use a reduction unit having a 3" offset. This 3" is pretty standard on belt reduction units, but I'm not too thrilled about those type psru's. The only airplane mod I've made is to add a header tank, but even that wasn't necessary. Just personal choice. I'm painting top of my plane now, so looks likely I'll be taxi testing next summer. -al wick Canopy Latch System guy. Artificial intelligence in Cockpit Cozy sn 389 driven by stock Subaru 2.5 ltr 103% complete, Aug 00 first flight sched.. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From: "Alpha" Subject: COZY: Alt. engine - Tracy Crook's 856 hour teardown report Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:34:56 -0400 For those that are interested in alternative engines that have been used in airplanes: Tracy Crook used a Mazda 13B engine in an RV6 using a Ross PSRU and at 856 hours was replaced. This report was posted to Paul Lamar's Rotary engine interest group. This information is posted to pass on facts found upon use of the 13B engine and is not meant to create an uproar---I understand why Nat holds the position he does about non-certified engines. I also understand why some may not want to "re-invent the wheel" but there is movement in alt. engine circles that may give us "po folks" a way to fly safely and inexpensively. In this light I pass on the report from Tracy Crook. Jim Brewer Albemarle, NC Tracy Crook wrote: > > Finally got around to doing the teardown of the old engine (856 hours flight > time). The results were better than I had hoped for. It should be > remembered that this was a used 1986 13B engine with between 50 - 70 > thousand miles on it when I gave it a minimal overhaul. It ran well but had > been overheated bad enough to ruin the oil seal o-rings and smoked badly. > The only parts replaced were the apex seals, oil seal O-rings and some side > seal springs. > > This was the first rotary I had ever seen but now after tearing down about a > dozen 13Bs with various milage, I know it was not in particularly good > shape. I have seen 130,000 mile engines in better condition. I say this > because it is difficult to characterize the condition of some parts > (especially rotor housings) in hard numbers. > > The first thing I noticed was how little carbon there was in the seal > grooves. Until you have torn down a typical 13B from a car you can't > appreciate this but almost all the rotor seals fell out with nothing more > than gravity to help. Even the side seal springs came out with just a > gentle tug. I had to dig the originals out with the help of an X-acto knife > and most of them broke. There was a moderate amount of carbon on the > faces of the rotors but it was the soft, easily removed variety which took > only a few minutes with a single edge razor blade and a brass wire brush to > remove. I estimate that total cleaning time to prepare this engine for > overhaul would be about an hour. I spent two full DAYS cleaning it the > first time. I attribute the lack of carbon in the grooves to the use of two > stroke oil in the fuel instead of using the factory oil injection. > (instead of straight Marvel Mystery Oil , I now mix two stroke oil half & > half with MMO and use one ounce of this mixture per gallon of fuel) > > The water jacket O-rings looked good and I was able to pull them out in one > piece. (which is unusual). The oil would not explain why these grooves were > so clean. Maybe it was the Hylomar? Or perhaps it was the relatively few t > hermal cycles the engine gets compared to a car. > > The wear on the apex seals was the smallest I have seen on any engine. Only > did a quick measurement on one of them so far but they all look the same. > Looks like about .017" off the height of the seal. The face of the seal was > perfectly smooth and rounded with no chamfering. > > Wear on main & rotor bearings was not measurable. These things almost > never seem to be worn. Same story on the E shaft bearing surfaces. Side > seal wear while in the plane was only .00025 - .0005" (they had .002" wear > from their previous life in a car). > The oil pump drive chain had over 5/8 inch "flop" in it which was a little > more than it had originally. It probably should have been changed. > > I already reported on the thrust bearing wear due to thrust transfered from > the Ross drive. It was very worn (about .020") but oddly, there was no > fretting or galling of the needles or races. They were smoothly worn. The > needles were worn to a tapered shape and the diameter was reduced enough > that many of them fell out of the cage when it was removed. The thrust > bearing on the other side of the thrust plate (virtually unloaded) was like > new. > > When I assembled the engine, the rotor housings were not in very good > condition compared with what I would now consider to be "good". They fit > the description of what I now call "usable". The total rotor housing wear > was not directly measurable with the tools that I have. After looking at > enough of these things you can usually judge them by eye. > In spite of their so-so condition when put back in service, they held up > remarkably well. The groove worn by the apex seal corner piece had not > increased in depth and there was no further "chiping " of the chrome between > the groove and edge. (we are talking about very tiny chips here) There were > no scratches and no noticible wearing of the chrome surface in spite of the > fact that I never ran an aircleaner. The best idea I can give you is to say > that they looked exactly the way they looked when I put the engine back > together 5 1/2 years ago. If I were putting together an engine for my > airplane today I'd probably replace them, but on the other hand, I'd fly > them again if I didn't have the money. > > Everett Hatch expressed a lot of concern for what he called "coking" on the > inside of the rotor housing. This shows up as carbonized oil in the area > just after the minor axis on the spark plug side which will be about the > hottest area on the housing. He went to great lengths to improve cooling > here in an effort to eliminate this coking and cracking around the sparkplug > holes. There was some sign of coking on both of the rotor housings but it > was very minor and could be easily removed just by spraying on some solvent > (I had PB Blaster laying around) and rubbing it with a fingertip. I don't > think it is anything to get concerned about and I think the cause may be due > to the apex seal skipping over this area after going over the "ski jump" at > the minor axis. There is very little pressure in the chamber when the apex > seal arrives at this point because the exhaust port has just opened, in one > case, or entering the compression cycle in the other. There was no sign of > any cracks around the spark plug holes. > > Along with the apex seals, I was most interested in how the sidehousings > held up. The point of maximun wear is a step near the minor axis on the > sparkplug side where the side and corner seals exert maximum pressure. The > step measured about .002" when overhauled. The step had increased to > .00225 - .0025", still less than the factory limit of .0039". One > interesting point was that the step is usually about 1.5" wide in car > engines (even when the depth is as much as .005) but mine were now almost > double that. There is no factory spec on how wide it can be. I think the > width of the step may be a function of average power the engine is run at. > I'll post more details on the website in a few weeks. > > Sorry, the engine is not for sale. It's sentimental value alone prevents me > from parting with it. > > My overall conclusion is that the engine is easily capable of 2000 hour TBO > in aircraft service (assuming you ditch the oil injection and eliminate the > thrust from the re-drive). Check back with me in about 5 years and I'll > know for sure :-) > > Tracy Crook > rws@altavista.net > http://www.rotaryaviation.com What! No burn't exhaust valves? You've got to be kidding.:-) Paul Lamar The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter. Powered by Linux. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ http://www.linux.org From: Jim Hocut Subject: COZY: Franklin Engines? Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 22:43:08 -0500 Whatever happened to all the enthusiastic builders who were going to get Franklin engines? Haven't heard any status reports in quite some time and I'm wondering if anyone is still pursuing this. I got to ride shotgun in a Cessna-170 that had been converted to a 210 hp Franklin and was extremely impressed. Besides the thrill of being airborne in 300 ft and then being launched nearly vertically, I was amazed at how smooth the engine ran. My interest is definitely piqued. Jim Hocut jhocut@mindspring.com Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 22:42:52 -0600 Subject: COZY: RE: Franklin Engines? From: "Filipovic" I'm interested in the Franklin engine for my Cozy IV. I've only heard good things about it, and since I'm just starting to build, I believe there is plenty of opportunity to address the increased weight of this engine by moving the battery to the front. I e-mailed Ivo propellers, and they say their Magnum high-pitch electrically adjustable prop can be mated to the Franklin engine. Of course, by the time I'm in need of an engine, there could be more options available - like diesel for example...:-) Nat, do you still have drawings for the engine mount and installation of the Franklin? Omar Filipovic Mk IV #816 Jim Hocut wrote: Whatever happened to all the enthusiastic builders who were going to get Franklin engines? Haven't heard any status reports in quite some time and I'm wondering if anyone is still pursuing this. Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:06:05 -0600 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: COZY: Re: SmartPlug >In the OCTOBER issue of Sport Aviation is a notice about a new ignition >device which the company Aqualytic Technologies of Sandpoint, ID >believes is capable of replacing magnetoes and other types of ignition >systems. It screws into a standard spark plug hole. It incorporates >a small precombustion chamber containing a catalyst that ignites >the engine´s fuel/air mixture. >It produced normal power on 87 octane and 100 LL avgas and picked up >75 rpm using Jet -A in a Continental O-200 ! If this is thrue and >if it would be a STC, or equal, this is a dream for us in Europe >with our expensive avgas. >Any comments ? Be SKEPTICAL . . . seems this idea was floated as SBIR grant with NASA for last year. First phase grants are generally for one year with a potential for follow-on work several years later. Phase I is generally $100,000 while phase II grants of $600,000 are possible. The thing to watch for is the awarding of a Phase II grant. Did a quick search of the 'net and found the following URL's that refer to to the Aqualytic ignition product. http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR-abstracts/98/sbir_html/980715.html http://www.cda.net/stories/1998/Oct/29/S474456.asp http://www.coe.isu.edu/engrg/ethanol.html I recall dozens of stories about 60+ mpg carburetors, ignition systems that boost power/mileage by umpteen percent, fuel processing systems offering amazing "improvements" in performance, etc. One guy even made national news about 40 years ago selling a tablet that would convert a tank of water into a fuel suitable for running your car. Don't get me wrong. I wish this guy all the success that the laws of physics are willing to let him have. However, just because an agency of the US Government chooses to spend $100,000 on any sort of program does not lend credance to its value. I can think of $60M that is largely going down the tubes right now on the AGATE program . . . but that's another story. Keep your eyes and ears open, stroke the web with your favorite search engines from time to time and see what happens. In the mean time, I would be very cautious about offers to buy any stock in the company . . . Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < Independence Kansas: the > < Jurassic Park of aviation. > < Your source for brand new > < 40 year old airplanes. > ================================= http://www.aeroelectric.com Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 23:00:14 -0700 From: "Capital Steel Inc." Subject: COZY: Aqualytic Hi, Reference Aqualytic Spark/Ignition/Gloplugs/PreCombustion Popular Mechanics covered a Ford Motor foray into this arena in the late 60's or early 70's. I could only wish it were true. I won't bet on it in the next 10 years tho. Joe Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 05:57:58 -0500 From: Jeff Russell Subject: Re: COZY: RE: Franklin Engines? Filipovic wrote: > Nat, do you still have drawings for the engine mount and installation of the > Franklin? > Velocity aircraft will make a Franklin engine mount for your airframe. They have made them for our AeroCanard in the past. You will need to call for pricing. Ask for Scott. Tell him your thrust angle is at water line 21 unless Nat went back to 20. He will need to answer that one on how the cowlings were made. -- Jeff From: SWrightFLY@aol.com Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:19:10 EST Subject: Re: COZY: RE: Franklin Engines? In a message dated 11/17/99 5:01:43 AM Central Standard Time, JRaero@gte.net writes: << Nat, do you still have drawings for the engine mount and installation of the > Franklin? > Velocity aircraft will make a Franklin engine mount for your airframe. They have made them for our AeroCanard in the past. >> I built my own mount for my Stagger EZ and found the entrire process Veri EZE. I can give you details if you wish.......give me a call.....It requires a long verbal discussion. 615-373-9707 Steve From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: COZY: Franklin engines Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:50:10 -0600 Dear Builders, We have been asked several times recently whether we support Franklin engine installations. In order to do this, we would have to furnish a mount to Brock mfg. and pay them to make an engine mount jig, we would have to furnish a set of cowlings (they are different for the Franklin) to Featherlite and pay them to make molds, and we would have to make drawings for all of the baffling, special exhaust pipes, heat muffs, carburetor air filter and heat box, and write instructions for the installation. At one time, we thought that this might be a big benefit for our builders, because at one time the cost of a new Franklin was around $12,000. Of course, this did not include any of the accessories, and there were questions about whether magnetos, fuel pumps, starters, etc. would be available off the shelf without requiring builder modifications. But we flew a Franklin for one year, putting about 100 hours on it. It was smooth running, BUT it weighed approx. 90 lbs. more than and 0-360 installed, it didn't provide any more horsepower for takeoff than the 0-360, it required a much larger oil cooler, it did not lend itself to a neat, compact air filter box with ram air, it was difficult to cool the middle cylinders, and it had an oil leak we were unable to find and plug in a whole year's time. We had difficulty communicating with tech support (Chezchs), getting parts, and then the US distributer quit (or was terminated) and the price was increased substantially. During this period, Aero Sport Power in B.C. was advertising rebuilt 0-360s, without trade-in, but all new accessories for $14,500, which was less than our cost of installing the Franklin at its original low price. So we decided there was no incentive for us to invest a lot of time and money on an installation that we could not recommend. So we do not support the Franklin installation. Best regards, Nat Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:54:20 -0600 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Franklin engines Nat, With the Franklin ingine, did you run the 3 blade Performance prop and if so were you able to keep the blades out of the exhaust? My only gripe with 3 blades and 4 cylinders, one blade gets sooted. dd From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: Re: COZY: Franklin engines Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:34:09 -0600 David, Yes, I did run the 3-blade with the Franklin. In spite of my thinking it would be more powerful, I had to use the same prop as I had on the Lycoming (it cost me a lot of money to discover that), and it turned up the same static rpm as on the Lycoming. There was no way I could keep all the blades (or even 2 of them) out of the exhaust. I am running a 2-blade Sensenich now, and evaluating how well I can "clock" it. I just moved it to the 2nd position (out of 3), but haven't flown it yet in that position. Thanks to Carl, I presume, this Sensenich now has a pretty beefy glass layup on the last 4 inches of the tips. Never had any problem with prop tips in 21 years. Nat ---------- > From: David Domeier > To: Nat Puffer > Cc: Cozy_Builders@canard.com > Subject: Re: COZY: Franklin engines > Date: Thursday, November 18, 1999 4:54 PM > > Nat, > > With the Franklin ingine, did you run the 3 blade Performance prop > and if so were you able to keep the blades out of the exhaust? > > From: "norm doty" Subject: COZY: auto conversions Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:52:53 -0500 just for what its worth, dont think your going to take any auto engine and stick it into your plane, its going to take a tremendious amount of work and enginering. its also not as cheep as you might think or been led to believe. you need a reduction drive in almost every case, your mounts and exhaust and cooling system and everything else need to be custom fabricated. unless you like a challenge, and great amounts of dissapointment(not to mention wasted money for parts or ideas that dont work out) this isnt really for you. yes in the end if you dont make to many (misteaks), see how easy it is! youll only save about 4000.00 over a zero timed aircraft engine. now after all that your real savings will be in operation and later repair(and yes it will need repair) if you think it wont you shouldnt be trying it. norm ford v-6 From: Ian Douglas Subject: RE: COZY: auto conversions Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:53:06 -0500 Just to add an observation... Did anyone think to ask the Leon brothers what they thought? They did a lot of research and I am sure they could tell you the costs as well. Of course I am also sure that they were really happy to have those two engines when one quit over the ocean on the way home. Was it due to using auto parts or was it due to the design considerations when placing the coil? Although I will initially be putting a Franklin engine in my Cozy (complete 0 timed engines, to factory specs, for about $8500.00), I intend to put two engines in my Cozy because I prefer the added safety of two engines. The added cost of having the Franklin engine mount custom made plus the added time for cowlings and other issues Nat has brought up, may prove my Franklin decision not to be the best choice. But since I am heavy (200lbs) and plan to put the oil cooler and battery in the nose, The balancing act should be OK. The rest of my family are all female that are 120, 60 and 28lbs. I think that total weight will not be a problem for a long time to come. By then I plan to have my second Cozy built. Ian Douglas Cozy MKIV plans 0069 and 0626 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:13:30 -0600 From: "Tom Brusehaver" Subject: Re: COZY: auto conversions Ian Douglas wrote: > Just to add an observation... Did anyone think to ask the Leon brothers > what they thought? At the cozy banquet in August, the Leon Brothers made a comment, and I cannot remember if they said it, or I inferred it. Basically the gist of it was they have a research platform, not a transportation system. That is my view of the process. The airframe can pretty much be shaken out by me in hopefully 40 hours or so. An engine, could take 100 or more hours, then there are a series of unknowns, such as longevity, maintence costs/time, and others I haven't thought of. My thought, when I finish this airplane, I want a transportation system. When I build the next airplane (two seat fun plane), then I'll consider having a research platform. From: "Wendell Best" Subject: Re: COZY: Auto Engines- Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 08:51:50 -0700 I got a book from Aircraft Spruce called "Converting Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft". Best $20.00 dollars I've spent. When seeing that even an overhauled certified aircraft engine in the 300 horse power range I want can cost as much as $19,000 dollars its comforting to know you can get a 400 horse power engine for a little over $6,000 dollars with better dependability, cheaper parts, and less maintenance. Wendell Best 217 Fireball Dr. Clovis, NM 88101 (505)769-9001 wbest@ZiaNet.com bestfam@plateautel.net http://www.zianet.com/wbest ----- Original Message ----- From: Louis Brathwaite To: cozy Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 12:42 PM Subject: COZY: Auto Engines- > MUST SEE ARTICLE - "AUTOMOBILE" NOV 1999 magazine -Air Power by Robert > Cumberford. > Robert Cumberford deserves a couple of flying oscars for this 5 page > article with pictures. He gives answers to the tentative questions > repeatedly being voiced by many of our builders about using auto > engines. He touches all of the bases on what has been and can be done > with modern automobile engines (Ford, Mazda, Subaru, Suzuki (Hi Leon)and > others), and why. Good show! > Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 21:56:38 +0000 From: Blake Mantel Subject: Re: COZY: Auto Engines- Jeff Russell wrote: > alwick@juno.com wrote: > > > I think if you research auto conversions, you'll run into a lot of > > emotions. Opinions. You'll hear a lot of anecdotal stories. Some are > > significant, others are not. Tough to get meaningful info. > > I never said that auto engines are a bad thing to install, but there > might be many things that would have to be worked out. A lot of people > think it will be much cheaper. In the long run, that is to be seen. > -- > Jeff Not to add fuel to the fire, but I have always wondered about using modern engines with modern air frames. Not older air-cooled engines. Standard auto engine should be upgraded to near race material specs IMHO. But while auto engine designs have come a long way they have been far eclipsed by motorcycle engine design. High HP and torque producing engines are the standard. And the lighter the better. Also theses engines are designed for abusive high revving service. Probably the most advanced current production motorcycle: http://www.suzukicycles.com/sr-20/sportstreet/fs_gsx1300.htm More info: http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/topspeed/99topspeed.html Just some more confusion, Blake -- CUM CATAPULTAE PROSCRIPTAE ERUNT TUM SOLI PROSCRIPTI CATAPULTAS HABEBUNT. (When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults....) Triumph Tiger Motorcycle page at: http://www.tiac.net/users/blakem/ My Email address is altered due to the prevalence of bulk Email senders. To send me mail remove the two *'s before the TIAC.NET. From: alwick@juno.com Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 15:17:41 -0800 Subject: Re: COZY: Auto Engines- Applying some critical thinking here..... Sounds like this Pacer guy had a timing and noise problem. Do auto engines normally have timing and noise issues? Do most or all auto conversions have timing change mid flight? I think if you research auto conversions, you'll run into a lot of emotions. Opinions. You'll hear a lot of anecdotal stories. Some are significant, others are not. Tough to get meaningful info. Engine noise is oft solved using light weight mufflers. After many years listening to challenges of other auto conversion advocates, I gotta admit I've never heard of a timing problem as described. There are some VERY good reasons to NOT use an auto engine in an aircraft, but a noisey Pacer and obscure timing issue are not among them. Neither is the cost of the reduction unit. I am convinced that 90% of all auto conversion problems are the result of the operator changing the design of the auto engine. Research it. Just a few months from beginning of ground testing! Can't wait! -al wick Canopy Latch System guy. Artificial intelligence in Cockpit Cozy sn 389 driven by stock Subaru 2.5 ltr 106% complete, Aug 00 first flight sched.. On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:00:24 -0500 Jeff Russell writes: > I few with him one time and found that the straight pipes were extremely noisy. > To produce full power on that engine, a gear drive was use not to > over speed the prop. This cost added about $2000.00 to the engine. > The timing seemed to change when the airplane leveled from a clime >SNIP ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 20:02:37 -0500 From: Jeff Russell Subject: Re: COZY: Auto Engines- alwick@juno.com wrote: > I think if you research auto conversions, you'll run into a lot of > emotions. Opinions. You'll hear a lot of anecdotal stories. Some are > significant, others are not. Tough to get meaningful info. I never said that auto engines are a bad thing to install, but there might be many things that would have to be worked out. A lot of people think it will be much cheaper. In the long run, that is to be seen. -- Jeff From: "Wendell Best" Subject: Re: COZY: Auto Engines- Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 21:09:59 -0700 Hi Jeff, Seems like to me that there was mis-match in either the engine, or gear reduction box. A newer technology engine with fuel injection would have helped a lot since automotive carburators are normally tuned for one altitude. Your friend would have needed to come up with an additional control linkage to futher lean the fuel mixture at altitude to produce max power at a lower rpm. A variable pitch prop would have helped too. From the things I have seen and some of my own automotive knowledge your going to have problems with a carberated car engine when you change the altitudes. There are some built in compensation for altitude on these carberators, but with a plane that can go from 100' above sea level to 8,000' will cause lots of problems in tuning. Ideally you would tune the engine for cruise altitude instead of ground level running. The reason I know this is that people who live in the higher parts of Colorado that drive down to Texas or the coast normally need to tune up thier engines if they stay in a lower elevation for a while. Computer controled engines automatically adjust mixtures and airflow for various altitudes with no or minimal lose of power. I can varifiy this myself since my Ford Tuarus has made it through Colorado doing 50mph up hill passing older model trucks with carberators that were struggling at 35mph. Wendell Best 217 Fireball Dr. Clovis, NM 88101 (505)769-9001 wbest@ZiaNet.com http://www.zianet.com/wbest ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Russell To: Cozy Builders Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 12:00 PM Subject: Re: COZY: Auto Engines- > Wendell Best wrote: > > > > Snip > its comforting to know you can get a 400 horse power engine > > for a little over $6,000 dollars with better dependability, > > cheaper parts, and less maintenance. > > I helped a person years ago on a auto conversion to a Tri-Pacer. > I helped him make the intake scoops for the radiator. I few with > him one time and found that the straight pipes were extremely noisy. > To produce full power on that engine, a gear drive was use not to > over speed the prop. This cost added about $2000.00 to the engine. > The timing seemed to change when the airplane leveled from a clime and > went to cruse. He changed carburetors, distributor and everything else > trying to stop this problem. The person that used to make all of our > metal parts was a X-race nut that built cars and motorcycles. Even > he got involved trying to solve the problems and both gave up after > many forced landings. The mechanic said that running an engine at > that RPM for long periods of time would give the life of a race engine. > > Most race teams change their engine after every race :-) > > We only use 2700 max RPM on the aircraft engine with fairly long TBO. > The Tri-Pacer need about 4500 RPM to stay in the air and it took off > using about 5500 RPM. > > The end result was my friend sold this project and went back to > the normal engine/airframe to get him places. He never took his > family in that airplane and I was glad he never asked me to fly in > that one again. I would not try this if you expect not to spend > the same or more than an aircraft engine. Junk yard engines are > not a good prospect over new ones. > > Good luck with the people carving the way with the auto conversions. > Just realize this is not a piece of cake or we would have seen many > with hundreds of hours building up on them. Firewall packages would > also be for sale that one could install with what has been tried and > trued. > > -- > Jeff > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 16:30:57 -0500 From: Louis Brathwaite Subject: COZY: COZY- AUTO ENGINES- If anybody has trouble finding the Nov 1999 issue of "Automobile" - go to your public library and look in the periodical room for a copy of this magazine, and the article is entitled AIR POWER. Thanks again - Bob Cumberford, you've helped some of us a tremendous bit - chaou - Lou Brathwaite From: Militch@aol.com Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 13:09:46 EST Subject: Re: COZY: Auto Engines- In a message dated 11/23/99 11:27:54 PM, wbest@zianet.com wrote: > I will have to say that a car running on a highway at 2500rpm and only >producing 20hp doesn't make any sense. The rule is that as rpm increases so >does horse power. Remember that under typical driving conditions, your car is operating with not much more than the idle circuit feeding fuel in. 2500 rpm (if that's half the rpm for max rated power) will produce half rated power only if you have your foot flat to the floor. That's generally not the case. Power is rpm x torque. If you aren't demanding maximum torque, you won't be getting all the power you could get. Aircraft engines with around 360 inches of displacement only put out >around 150-200hp. Why? Because they are designed for high torque. Actually it's because rpms are (relatively) low. Engine stresses grow as the square or even the cube of speed. Designers of A/C engines said "We want long-life, so we gotta have low revs. We want lots of power, so we gotta have cubic inches. We want low piston speeds, so we gotta have short strokes. Since we still want cubes, we gotta have big bores". That took about 15 minutes to figure out in 1935. The rest has just been materials experimentation. Race car engines >run for hours at rpms of 14,000rpm! A lot of that technology goes into cars, >so it is obvious they can make a auto engine last a long time at 3,000rpm or >better. Same reasons as above. Hours at 14,000 rpm = days at 8,000 rpm = weeks at 6,000 rpm = years at 3,000 rpm. AA Top Fuel Dragsters get 4,000 hp out of 550 cubic inches at 9,000 rpm, on nitro and superchargers. Engine life between overhauls is typically 15 seconds of full power operation which equals 3 races and a total elapsed number of engine revolutions of about 2,500 turns of the crank-shaft. Regards > Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:32:05 -0500 From: "Johnson, Phillip" Subject: COZY: RE:Auto Engines I have been maintaining a listening watch on this thread for several days now and it's good to see that such a controversial topic as auto conversions has not yet resulted in the usual flaming seen in so many other groups. This I find encouraging and indicates that the group is taking a truly objective view in this arena. I am an advocate of the auto conversion but I do not see it as just a less expensive alternative to the certified power plants that are generally used in our aircraft today. I believe that with modern technology and the vast resources of the motor industry a more advanced engine is out there. I have been researching this topic for a number of years and I am in the final throws of installing a Subaru EG33 engine into my Cozy MKIV. I selected this engine because the power output, 230 hp straight from the box, is comparable to the Franklin and the installed weight is either comparable or less than the Franklin. I am a heavy pilot so a tail heavy high horse power engine is to my benefit. Clearly with this power available straight from the box there is little threat of being shy of a few horse power in those all too critical first flights. For example, if the conversion does not turn out to be as good as I hoped I have 50 HP margin before I reach the power rating of the 0-360. The engine is an all aluminium six cylinder horizontally opposed engine using dual overhead camshafts on each bank. Each cylinder has four valves and a centrally located sparking plug fired directly from a high energy ignition coil that is mechanically attached to each sparking plug. There are, by inference, six coils, yielding some level of redundancy in the event of a coil failure but increasing the probability of a coil failure by a factor of six. The water pump is directly driven from the timing belt. The crank shaft is a forged crank and is supported by seven bearings. In order to achieve the full 230 HP it is necessary to turn the engine at 5400 rpm which is twice as fast as the 0-360 Lycoming. With the lighter pistons and connecting rods combined with the short piston stroke, operation at high RPM is not such a demanding issue as most North Americans would believe. I say North Americans because the rest of the world is used to driving with small high revving engine under the hood. There is very little difference in piston speed between the certified aircraft engine and the modern automotive engine and, THIS IS THE CRITICAL BIT, with liquid cooling, the oils have a better chance to work reducing wear. I have a friend, yes one of those famous friends, who has almost 1000 hours on a small Subaru in a canard pusher. On last tear down he was still able to see the cross hatching on the cylinder wall and could detect no wear. I believe that the issues of wear in automotive conversions to be ill founded and are based on what would be expected from an air cooled engine of the same performance. Where are the risks? Clearly there are risks otherwise the flight line would be full of auto conversions. The biggest risk is that few people have successfully done it before. Everyone knows how to install a Lycoming and every one is installed in an almost identical fashion albeit on a Mooney or a Cozy (Except the cozy has it's engine the right way around). Almost every bug known to man has been encountered for the certified conversion but the experimentalist installing the auto conversion is in a new playing field and there is no one out there to help him/her. The internet has contributed to the transfer of data, good and bad, but the data is being transferred, and this may have been the catalyst needed for the experimentalist. I have addressed most of the issues, for my personal consumption, that I believe exist in the auto conversion but I 'm sure that some will rear their ugly heads on the day of reckoning so I had better be ready. The critical areas seem to be cooling, fuel systems, protection of critical sensors, and PSRU, there are of course several others that will always cause someone to write into the list. Cooling is usually the first issue as it becomes evident on the ground in taxi trials. With the advent of exhaust augmentation cooling systems and particular attention to detail sealing around the radiator, relatively small radiators have been incorporated with much success. The PSRU is the sub system that I distrust the most. I believe that that is the Achilles' Heel of the installation. I have a Ross Aero 1.85:1 reduction drive with a six planet cluster and I believe it to be one of the best out there for the pusher configuration but evidence has shown that the majority of failures occur in the PSRU sub system. BUYER BEWARE. Some interesting facts came to light when reviewing the various auto options that I investigated. The choice of a six cylinder engine reduces the peak torque by 30% to 70% of it's four cylinder counterpart. Now what I mean by peak torque is that the torque from each cylinder is, to a first approximation, a half cycle of a sine wave. The four cylinder engine, again to a first approximation, generates a torque pulse train that is a rectified sine wave yielding a mean torque of 70% of the peak value. It is this mean torque that the dynamometer measures. When two more cylinders are added the mean torque increases by 50% but in this simplistic analysis the peak torque is unchanged yielding an almost constant torque with little ripple. In example, the 3.3 litre six cylinder EG33 Subaru engine exhibits the same peak torque as the 2.2 litre four cylinder EG22 Subaru engine yet 50% more mean torque is offered. Now when the engine is coupled to an inertial load such as a propeller the risk of torsional resonance is much higher with the four cylinder engine because of the high harmonic content of the of the torque pulses. The six cylinder 3.3 liter Subaru thus loads the PSRU more lightly than the 2.2 liter or the 2.5 litre four cylinder configurations. This is also true for the 0-360 four cylinder Lycoming compared with the six cylinder equivalent Continental. The price is paid for in the weight of the engine. Some issues were raised recently about torque/power from auto engines relative to certified aircraft engines so ran some calculations to compare apples with apples. I came up with a coefficient: Horse Power per Litre per 1000rpm which is basically a constant for all engines of the same efficiency, and the results are given below: Subaru EG33 3.3 litre six cylinder 12.91 Subaru EG25 2.5 litre four cylinder 12.69 Subaru EG22 2.2 litre four cylinder 11.36 Subaru EA81 1.8 litre four cylinder 7.48 (unmodified) Subaru EA81 1.8 litre four cylinder 11.32 (modified engine) Lycoming 0-360 5.9 litre four cylinder 11.30 These data indicate a very similar performance from all of the engines with the two top of the line Subaru's yielding about 15% more performance than the others. The unmodified EA81 has poor performance because it is a high revving push rod engine with Siamesed exhaust system. I did not include data from the Mazda rotary engine because I have not followed that route personally. Clearly these data indicates that the auto engines are not being pushed beyond sensible limits but that a PSRU is necessary to convert the power to a useable form. There has been much discussion about cost of auto engine conversions. I have found mine to be very inexpensive. I bought the engine for $4800 (Canadian dollars) approximately $3300 US and the PSRU was $3200 US. I built a stainless tuned exhaust system for $200 US (stainless pipe form ACS) and have added about $200 US of misc. tube and $500 US for the radiator. In total the cost is about $8000. The real benefit comes when a rebuild is necessary. The short block is $2500 US which means that you can get basically the whole engine less the heads etc for $2.5k which is a real saving compared to the Certified engines. The threat to safety comes when the experimenter cannot afford the necessary maintenance and he/she puts their head in the sand because of the cost. This is common place in experimental aviation and by keeping down the cost of maintenance, read auto conversion, the likelihood of inadequate maintenance may be reduced. This is my 200000 cents worth, sorry about the length. Phillip Johnson Cozy MKIV RG EG33 Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 08:48:21 -0500 From: "Johnson, Phillip" Subject: RE: COZY: RE:Auto Engines >John Slade Wrote>One thing you didn't mention was mounting issues. >Any comments on that? >With the vibration of a six cylinder horizontally opposed engine revving in >excess of 4000rpm the vibration is very low and I had no knowledge of the >dynamic mass of the engine, PRSU, and propeller so Dynafocal mounts were out. >(BTW Dynafocal mounts only work for a specific engine prop configuration, add >an extension and you can forget it.) I made a mount that was rigidly mounted >to the engine but had Lycoming conical mounting rubbers at the firewall. >Instead of the hard points on the firewall I fabricated a cup to hold the >Lyc. rubber mounts so that the whole firewall backwards arrangement was >suspended by the rubber mounts. With this configuration there is no >differential movement between the engine and any of the accessories. The >mounts attach to the firewall as follows: > >1) The lower two mounts are in the stock position on the firewall, >2) The second pair are mounted just under the spar and about three inches >inboard of the lower mounts. >3) The third pair of mounts mount high up on the firewall. > >Originally the top mounts were in the stock position and I hung the engine >off a dummy firewall. It looked so wrong and I was not prepared to fly with >that configuration so I moved the mounts upwards. Now to do all of this I had >to do some structural analysis, in particular for the upper pair of mounts. I >provided somewhat of an overkill for the upper mounts just for safety and to >provide for additional roll over protection at the rear of the fuselage. It's >not possible to describe the engine mounting frame other to say that it is >configured as two frames, one bed mount under the engine and one, dominantly >tensile, frame above the engine. The main loads from the prop are >transitioned to the bell housing of the PSRU and from there directly to the >firewall. The engine does not see the prop load at all. If enough people are >interested I guess I could create an info pack of sketches for email but you >must all appreciate that it is still experimental and subject to change. > >Phillip Johnson > >Cozy MkIV RG EG33 #30 > > From: alwick@juno.com Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 08:39:09 -0800 Subject: COZY: Re: COZY Auto Engines On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 08:48:21 -0500 "Johnson, Phillip" writes: > >John Slade Wrote>One thing you didn't mention was mounting issues. > >Any comments on that? Subject: RE: COZY: Auto Engines- Lou Ross' son Chris told me that his testing on a stock 13B got around 179hp at 6250RPM. -----Original Message----- From: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com [mailto:owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com]On Behalf Of Bulent Aliev Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 9:44 AM To: Cozy Subject: Re: COZY: Auto Engines- You are kidding David. Right? If not, there is something wrong with your perception of the 13B. There is so much proof against your hp numbers and overhaul prices that I don't know where to begin. Anyone interested can check Tracy Crook's web site: WWW.rotaryaviation.com, or Paul Lamar's News group: http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ I'm picking up my '92 13B engine sometime next week. It comes rated at 255hp in the car. Bulent David Burkes wrote: > The 13B only develops about 135 hp. Overhaul costs start at 2k. > Check out Mazdatrix.com.......I love my Rx-7 (I have had three) > My point is that to get that much hp you will need to soup it up > considerably, and cost you about 7k...... > David Burkes #837 - prebuild Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:38:30 -0500 From: "Johnson, Phillip" Subject: RE: COZY: Auto Engines- >Bulent wrote> I'm picking up my '92 13B engine sometime next week. It comes >rated at >255hp in the car. End< > >If my memory serves me correctly I believe that the 255hp 13B was a twin >turbo charged engine. I believe about 180hp is typical for normal aspiration. > >Phillip Johnson > > From: "Capps Family" Subject: COZY: MAZDA:13B Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:29:45 -0600 Tracy Crook has over 800 hours on an RV-4 powered by a Mazda 13B engine. Tracy offers a Mazda conversion manual for the 13B and newsletter. Here is the answers to your questions regarding the 13B as found on Tracy Crook website, and I have included other websites you should visit for further information. Q. What horsepower can I expect to get from the Mazda rotary? A. A relatively stock 13B two-rotor engine used in the RX7 will deliver from 150 - 200 HP in aircraft service. You may hear stories about 400 HP or more from other sources. When modified, this kind of power can be had for racing and other short duration uses but it has no relevance if you want to fly with this engine. When turbocharged, up to 275 HP could be used for take-off & initial climb but continuous power should be limited to around 170. The exact horsepower you get will depend on your choice of intake systems. A very simple manifold like the one I originally used with three Mikuni motorcycle carbs will produce about 160 HP at 6000 RPM. The somewhat better tuned manifold I now use with the EC2 EFI system produces about 180 HP at the same speed. Construction of this manifold (built from pieces of the stock system) was covered in our newsletter, "Rotary Aviation News". An optimally tuned manifold will get you close to 200 HP. Exhaust tuning is not as critical as the intake system on the rotary. Any low restriction type system will work fine. I do recommend a muffler as the exhaust note from the rotary at full song can be un-nerving. I built a simple muffler using a 15 inch length of 6 in. dia. Pipe which makes my RV-4 quieter that the Lycoming powered version. Details of manifold & exhaust construction are in the conversion guide we publish. All rotary exhaust systems should be constructed from 321 stainless tubing (or better) due to the higher EGT of the rotary. Don't use the massive (18 pound) cast iron exhaust manifold from the car. If you need more than 200 HP, you should look to the Mazda 20B three-rotor engine. These are more expensive and harder to find but they will make 240 to 300 reliable HP when normally aspirated. Note! Our power estimates are based on "as installed" test results comparing the rotary powered RV-4 with other RV-4s powered with 150 to 180 HP Lycoming. None of our engines have even been near a dynamometer. - Q. What is the highest time on a rotary in aircraft service? A. I have the highest time in an airplane that I know of. (800+ hours as of 3-99) Jim Mayfield had about 2500 total hours on a rotary powered gyrocopter. - Q. How much does the rotary weigh? A. Weight was one of the primary reasons I chose this engine. The only thing that really counts is what the total system with re-drive, cooling systems, engine mount, etc weighs. This is called firewall forward (FWF) weight. In my case, this is about 345 pounds. From my research, it appeared to be the only auto engine available which would equal the weight, power and reliability of the O - 320 or O - 360 Lycoming. ANY automotive V6 piston engine will be much heavier. Here is the breakdown of system weights in my airplane. This list is a bit out of date because it does not reflect many changes I have made (like the EFI system) but will give you a good idea of what you can expect. - Mazda 13B Engine Core 190 lbs. (incl. water pump) Ross PSRU...............................................................37 lbs. Starter (Toyota, geared)..................10 lbs. Alternator (Mazda 70Amp).....................9 lbs. Evaporator Cores (Qty. 2)..................7 lbs. (total) Oil Cooler (stock Mazda).....................8 lbs. Carburetors (3 Mikuni)...........................5 lbs. (total) Intake Manifold................................................2 lbs. Air Box........................................................................1 lb. Coolant (7 qts.)..........................................14 lbs. Ignition Coil Assys....................................5 lbs. Total Engine Weight 288 lbs. - Exhaust System...................................................8 lbs. Engine Sub-mount..........................................13 lbs. Main Engine Mount (RV-4)..................15 lbs. Brackets, Hoses, et. al........................9 lbs. Oil (7 qts.)......................................................12 lbs. - Total Installed Weight 345 lbs (Firewall Forward) - Q. What year engine do you recommend? A. Any of the RX7 13B engines from 1986 through 1995 are good. The most abundant models are the years 1986 - 88 which have parts that are all interchangeable. Most parts are physically the same in later years but rotor and counter weights were slightly lighter and these must be matched up. Either the normally aspirated or turbocharged engine is acceptable. Even if you do not intend to turbocharger you airplane, the turbo model works well when normally aspirated. Mazda still makes the RX7 but it is no longer sold in the US (after 1996). Rumors are flying that it, or another rotary powered car, will return in 2000. - Q. What is the cost to install the rotary in an aircraft and how long does it take? A. It is impossible to say what any given builder will spend on their engine installation. The exact cost will depend a lot on how resourceful you are. For example, if you order custom heat exchangers from Griffon for radiators & oil coolers, you could easily spend over $700. I used automotive air conditioner evaporator cores from the junkyard and spent $10. Intelligent use of available materials like this does not mean you are looking for trouble. I have no argument with those who insist on using the very best on their airplane. Here at Real World Solutions, we have one Guiding Principle on the subject: It is better to fly a good airplane that to dream about a perfect one. My total installation costs were close to $5000 including initial cost of the engine, redrive, engine instruments, cooling system, engine overhaul, exhaust system, etc (i.e. everything). Time-wise, I spent 4 months (almost 40 hours a week) designing, procuring parts, fabricating & debugging the installation. - Q. Is your redrive setup for use with constant speed (CS) propellers? A. No. CS propellers are expensive (about $7000 new) and are not simple stand-alone devices. They require a properly designed governor, which bolts to the engine. Obviously, such a thing does not exist for the Mazda rotary. We could design one and modify the gear drive to go with it but that would be an expensive venture. See Guiding Principle above. The recommended prop for our gear drive is a wood prop, either 2 or 3 blades. The use of a prop extension is not recommended. - - Real World Solutions Inc. was formed for the purpose of developing cost effective information and products for converting the Mazda rotary engine for aircraft use. The rotary is uniquely qualified for this use due to its high power-to-weight ratio and reliability at high power settings. -Tracy Crook http://www.rotaryaviation.com/ - RELIABILITY The Mazda 13B design is inherently more reliable than reciprocating engines in that there are fewer moving internal parts. There are no Cam shafts, valves, valve springs or keepers, no valve rocker arms, no connecting rods or piston wrist pins. Furthermore, there are a number of other features which contribute to reliable and safe operation. The rotors which revolve on an eccentric shaft (crankshaft) are of a iron alloy while the housing ( or chamber) they rotate in is of an aluminum alloy. Loss of coolant and resulting overheating resulting in the aluminum housing expanding faster than the iron rotors, this increases the clearances between moving parts (rotor) and stationary parts (the housing) which greatly reduce the potential for engine sizing due to over heating which can quickly occur with loss of coolant in reciprocating engines. (In fact, one installation of a 13B in an aircraft did lose all coolant and while the temperature red-lined, the engine continue to function until the pilot could land. A subsequent tear down and inspection of the engine revealed no damage other than a number of rubber seals were damaged due to the excess heat and required replacement.) The Mazda 13B engine has been used in automobile race events for a number of years and has a wide spread reputation for durability under extreme operating conditions. - The Mazda 13B design is inherently smoother than a reciprocating engine in that there are no linear to rotational translations as exists in a reciprocating engine. This greatly reduces vibration and inertial loads caused by pistons reversing direction in a cylinder several hundred times a minute. Additionally, the power pulses are more frequent, but of a much lower magnitude that a typical four cylinder aircraft engine. This reduces airframe and component fatigue effects and also reduces pilot and passenger fatigue. It also lowers the magnitude of the propeller torsion response to the power pulses. A number of studies on the predicted TBO of the Wankel in aircraft use have been done by industry and research centers. While the upper limit estimated has varied, depending on a number of conditions, the consensus appears to be that there is no reason to expect any less than the typical 2000 hour TBO of a certified aircraft engine and some indications are that it could be as much as 4000 hours. Only actually aircraft usage will provide the ultimate answer. But, given a first class remanufactured engine costs from $1600-$3200, the Wankel adaptation is cost effective even if the TBO turns out to be only 1000 hours. -Edward L. Anderson (http://www.flash.net/~donmack/mazda/information.html) - Rotary Ultimate Website http://www.nextdim.com/users/rxman/ - Ed Anderson's Mazda 13B RV-6A Installation and Flight http://www.flash.net/~donmack/mazda/ - Engine Weight/Size FYI, by Dave Williams, dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us http://www.iaw.on.ca/~aubertin/88mgt/dwilliams/engine.fyi Larry Larry A. Capps #829 Naperville, IL capps@mediaone.net From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: COZY: auto engines Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:11:29 -0600 Dear builders, It has been interesting to follow the discussion on auto engines. Without getting into the argument of reliability, after all the changes you have to make to install it into an airplane, Burt Rutan (I think most of you respect him) used to say, among other things, that the value of a Lycoming engine has been increasing each year, so if you fly 100 or so hours per year, the Lycoming will increase enough in value so that your use will have cost nothing. It is an investment which increases in value. It will be worth more after putting hours on it than what you paid for it. On the other hand, there is almost no resale value for an auto engine converted to aircraft use, so if you spend $6,000 or so and only fly for several hundred hours or less, it could be costing you $10 to $20/hour depreciation. Does anyone know what Shirl Dickey got for his Buick V-8 when he took it out of his E-racer, or did he junk it? How about Larry Olsen, when he took out the Mazda? Sometimes people who try to save money, end up spending more money. The other economic point is this. Building an airplane is an investment of both time and money. Cozy IIIs with Lycoming engines have resold from $39,000 to $53,000, depending on condition. Builders have received maybe up to twice their out-of-pocket cost. There was one Cozy III that was resold with a Ford V-6. Granted, it wasn't much to look at. The builder sold it for less than $10,000. He got about one-half his out-of-pocket cost. It took him a long time to sell it. It really reduced the value of his airplane. He was only able to sell it to someone who wanted to rebuild it and install a Lycoming. The purchasor rebuilt, installed an 0-320, and was advertising it for $45,000. The value was increased much more than the cost of the Lycoming. One very nice Cozy Mark IV with a Lycoming, sold for around $90,000. Another very nice one, with a remanufactured 0-360, we hope will bring over $100,000. I don't know how much a Mark IV with a well-installed auto engine would sell for, because I don't know of any that are even flying, other than the Leons, who are using the Cozy as a test platform for engine development. They freely say that they have been working for 2 years (both are graduate mechanical engineers), will have spent more money than a Lycoming would cost, and maybe never will be as reliable. When I asked them whether they took the island hopping route or came direct across the Carribean and the Gulf, they said they came direct because they would have engine failures regularly after so many hours, and by coming direct, they saved 4 hours each way. There is a highly modified airplane flying with a 3-rotor Mazda, but I don't know anything about its operating history. Mike Melvill and Dick Rutan flew around the world in Long EZs with the same Lycomings we recommend for the Mark IV. I sincerely hope that some day someone will have that kind of reliability with an auto engine, that no one will get killed in an emergency landing and I hope that when the day comes that some of you with auto engines have to sell your airplanes, you will get a decent price. Nat From: "John Slade" Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:59:26 -0500 Nat, The value issue has been on my mind while considering a Mazda. The details you give in your post help. You have hit the nail on the head, provided there is an eventual intention to sell or value the airplane. I hadn't though about the appreciating value of the actual engine itself. Personally, I rarely buy anything [real estate, automobile, airplane etc.] without giving serious consideration to it's resale value should I want to sell it. Good points, well made. Thanks. Anyone want to argue the auto engine pros on a purely financial angle? I don't think I do. Now, does anyone know where I can get an IO360 for about $5k? Regards, John Slade Cozy MKIV#757 From: "John Slade" Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 20:35:15 -0500 >Nat did make a very strong point. Didn't he though! >That only holds true if you buy cheap and sell high. Why would you go the other way? Duh! >The value of your aircraft will be no higher than the quality of the work that you put into >it. True, but it can be lower if no one wants it. Value is defined by what someone will pay. The old supply & demand thing. The market for auto-engine Cozy's is probably VERY small, hence value is low. By contrast, the market for "stock" Cozy's is [I suspect] quiet large and growing. Hence value is high. >Also if you sell your cozy or any aircraft with a high time engine you will >not recover your investment. Too many people know how much it cost to major >an aircraft engine. I don't think this is necessarily true. Lots of people want a 4 place canard, but don't want to spend 2500 hrs building one. All you gotta do is take the prospect for a ride and you got a sale at the asking price. >Besides if you ever want to sell just buy a mid time O-360 and change it >out. I think you would be $$$ ahead. I'm not so sure. What about the cowling, mounts and other costs of the swap. By the way - I have no intention of selling my baby once she's done, but I still consider the value issue important. John Slade Cozy MKIV #757 (installing ailerons) From: "John Brian Dempster" Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 20:57:02 -0500 Hi John Nat did make a very strong point. BUT That only holds true if you buy cheap and sell high. The value of your aircraft will be no higher then the quality of the work that you put into it. Also if you sell your cozy or any aircraft with a high time engine you will not recover your investment. Too many people know how much it cost to major an aircraft engine. Besides if you ever want to sell just buy a mid time O-360 and change it out. I think you would be $$$ ahead. Brian Dempster brian@cncshop.net ----- Original Message ----- From: John Slade To: Nat Puffer ; Sent: Sunday, November 28, 1999 6:59 PM Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines > Nat, > The value issue has been on my mind while considering a Mazda. The details > you give in your post help. You have hit the nail on the head, provided > there is an eventual intention to sell or value the airplane. I hadn't > though about the appreciating value of the actual engine itself. Personally, > I rarely buy anything [real estate, automobile, airplane etc.] without > giving serious consideration to it's resale value should I want to sell it. > > Good points, well made. Thanks. > Anyone want to argue the auto engine pros on a purely financial angle? I > don't think I do. > > Now, does anyone know where I can get an IO360 for about $5k? > Regards, > John Slade > Cozy MKIV#757 > > Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 22:13:45 -0400 From: Bulent Aliev Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines Hi did it as usual, by picking the best examples from aero engine installations and worst examples of auto conversion planes. This is an experimental group. Lets keep the doors open to innovation and experimentation. I was thinking today about: who knows how many builders give up when faced with the $15-20K engine bill? Bulent John Slade wrote: > >Nat did make a very strong point. > Didn't he though! From: alwick@juno.com Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:36:22 -0800 Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines I don't know how many people saw the Ford v-6 cozy, but that sucker was as ugly as they come. Didn't that plane require substantial rebuild due to construction deficiencies? I don't think it's reasonable to make broad assumptions using extreme exceptions. The Leons have a most unusual installation. Only one in the world. Twin props counter rotating. So, that means all auto installations are unreliable? I don't think it's reasonable to make broad assumptions using extreme exceptions. I too would expect most auto installations to have a poorer resale. Except for Tracy's perhaps, but that's an exception. However, don't assume that auto installs require airframe mods. So far I'm able to pop in lyc any time, with no indication of auto install. So I consider the resale value a valid argument, but in my install, not significant. I suspect that the Leons feel there is more value to the challenge of creative solutions, than the resale of their aircraft. Perhaps? -al ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 22:22:13 -0600 Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines From: "Filipovic" Nat wrote: I don't know how much a Mark IV with a well-installed auto engine would sell for, because I don't know of any that are even flying There is a highly modified airplane flying with a 3-rotor Mazda, but I don't know anything about its operating history. I believe Nat is talking about Brice Daunay's airplane. I live in Tulsa, and his airplane is here. It was for sale as of a few months ago. Not sure if it sold or not, but the asking price was $45,000. Brice moved to Europe for a while. His airplane is registered as a "Viper" and is about the size of a Velocity. His engine installation is very neat. In fact, I think it's the best part of THAT airplane. The 3-rotor Mazda runs smoothly, but Brice has had trouble keeping it cool on the ground. He said that he had about three minutes of running time on the ground before having to shut it down. This would happen if there is a long line for takeoff on a hot day. He's had to install a cooling fan on the radiator, and a fan on the left oil cooler. The engine is powerful and the airplane is quick. It produces a sweet sound. The airplane is almost completely different from the plans Cozy. I believe Brice kept the same wing, but the rest of the aircraft is very different. It is much bigger, has retractable gear, different bulkheads (or lack thereof), has two gull-wing doors, and no landing brake. There are many more differences... I have photos of his installation, and will e-mail them to someone who will post them on a website. Any volunteers? Omar Filipovic From: "John Slade" Subject: Re: COZY: auto engines Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:45:30 -0500 Romulo, >And so, Lycomings and Continentals and Franklin and Pratt & Wittney ooops! >this is rare!) shut down sometimes. There's no engines completelly reliables. True. In fact a P&W engine recently came apart at 3000 ft and rained down in bits just a couple of miles from me. You never know. I was just reacting to the "airplane value" issue. There are strong arguments in favor of auto engines when you consider installation cost, maintenance cost etc. Mazda also has some reliability arguments in its favor. - i.e. less moving parts. More likelyhood that you'll get home after a failure of some sort. I disagree with those who say it'll cost you more in the longrun. >Learning about alternative engines, like rotaries from Mazda, the confidence in >it are plenty feasible. I agree. This an experimental group. I admire what those guys with the twin suzuki are doing - they're airplane is intended more as an "engine test bed" than as a "transportation device". >Just learn about it. I am. The "experimenter" in me would love to perfect a ducted fan, mazda powered, firewall backward solution instead of using a 40 year old design. The "traveller" in me just wants the Cozy flying with a simple, heavily tried and tested solution. The "banker" in me want to fly without spending big $ on an engine. We have yet to see which one wins. I guess we each have to examine our motivation. Is it the fun of experimentation, the cost of getting airborne, the value of the plane etc. etc. Some builders hit a financial brick wall when faced with engine purchase, and never get to fly at all. Regards, John Slade From: extensionsystems@mindspring.com Subject: Fw: COZY: Engine Advice Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:42:03 -0000 Hi Steve I agree that the stoppage would not have been as harmful on this engine, you will still want to split the case and have all checked. Going from full power to zero in so many mill sec. cant be good. Thanks & Regards Brian Dempster -----Original Message----- From: Steve Campbell To: cozy_builders@canard.com Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 4:03 PM Subject: COZY: Engine Advice A low time IO360-C1A has recently come on the market. It was previously installed in a helicopter that suffered a rotor strike. I am told that because of the clutch in a helo, this is nothing like a prop strike. I (along with several other people) am interested in buying the engine for my Cozy Mark IV. Comments from someone more knowledgable in aircraft engines would be appreciated. Steve Campbell From: jetpilot@execpc.com Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:52:12 -0600 Subject: COZY: Engines Hi builders, this is Mark Wunduke (builder #748) and I been reading all the E-mails lately about different engines and auto-conversion engines, etc. I just wanted to give my 2 cents worth. This last year when I was at Oshkosh, I saw an Engine builder whose display was right next to the Velocity tent and whose engine's were based on the Suburu engine but highly modified for general aviation. Their web site is www.crossflow.com and they are Crossflow Aero Corporation out of Canada. They have different models ranging from the 180 hp model to the 350 hp model but what I thought was perfect for the Cozy's was the CF4-20t 200 hp model or even better was the CF4-33 which is rated at 250 hp and weighs 40 lbs "LESS" than an IO-360. They had three models on diplay and looked quite impressive. There package comes complete firewall forward or reward in our cases and comes complete with everything incliding engine mount, quick disconnect wiring harnesses, gear reduction drives, Custom 4 or 6 into one header exhaust system vented anywhere you want for your cowling. I will probably be buying this engine for my Cozy next year at Oshkosh. For the money, I haven't seen any engine come close to this brand new engine that runs on car gas, is fuel injected, turbocharged, water- cooled. Chech out their web page and request information about these engines. Seeing their engines up front was very impresive in the detailing and workmanship especially their exhaust system. All this is just my opinion, but seeing is believing. Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:00:49 -0600 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Engines Mark, Your comments re Crossflow led me to check out their webb page and here is what I noticed - CF4-20 Aircraft Engine 180 False $ 17100 US CF4-20T Aircraft Engine 200 False $ 18700 US Lead time is 8 months for both. The "False" comment was under column header "discontinued". What would concern me is plunking down 17 grand for an engine that has not, as far as I can determine from the webb sight, ever been installed and flown on a Cozy. It may be just great, but does one know?? Much flight testing will have to be done to prove it..... My Lycoming 0360-A4M cost $6500 and I had the best overhaul I could $12000 more. I think the engine will last the rest of my life. (plus I could sell it tommow for at least 12-14) These auto engine conversions really sound great, but when you run the numbers on 'em, I wonder how great a deal it is. Think about it before you part with 17 big ones. dd Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:47:12 -0600 From: rlacour@trib.com Subject: Re: COZY: I need your advice >I have a 0320h model in my cozy MKIV and so far I have gotten the a/c up >to about 180mph,with a little bit of work I should hit the big 200mph,the >only quirks I have found is the location of the fuel pump,its on the >front,but plumbing it has proved to be no problem.the carb should be >rotated 180 for better linkage placement,email me if you need any help >getting you h model to run in your cozy,its very EZ to do Rick rlacour@trib.com Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 13:51:42 -0500 From: Jeff Russell Subject: COZY: Re: O-320-H2AD dewayne morgan wrote: > > I have found an engine from a trusted friend. I really want a io-360 but > this is a really great deal. > > your comments would be greatly appreciated. here is the email i got: > > (could i put higher compression pistons in this?) Dewayne, I used the O-320-H2AD in my 3 place Cozy I built in 1990. I purchased it for $1500.00. It was taken out of a C-172 for a larger conversion. It had 1600 SFN with no bad history. It had all the mods less the "T" mod and it went to TBO on that airframe. The bad points: Did not fit the engine mount at the top. Weldtech made me one that worked. Duel mag? worked fine for the 400 hours, did not fit the standard firewall and holes through the firewall and center spar at the shear web were made and then repaired (backed up) for clearance on the P-leads. I checked with Burt and Mike on how to fix the spar for this to work. Long fuel lines to the prop for the pump. I also needed blisters on the top cowl for the fuel pump. The good points: price worked for me after the fitting problems were worked out. I would keep looking, You have a ways to go before you need one...... -- Jeff