From: krnet-bounces@mylist.net on behalf of krnet-request@mylist.net Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:30 AM To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: KRnet Digest, Vol 276, Issue 1 Send KRnet mailing list submissions to krnet@mylist.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mylist.net/listinfo/krnet or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to krnet-request@mylist.net You can reach the person managing the list at krnet-owner@mylist.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of KRnet digest..." Today's Topics: 1. dodged a bullet(fuel leak) (larry flesner) 2. Re: capitalization and punctuation -AND spelling (Norm Seel) 3. Edo-Aire question for the net (gleone) 4. Re: for sale (Greg Martin) 5. Re: Re:NOT KR>capitalization and punctuation (Mark Jones) 6. Re:NOT KR>Medical Blood Pressure Meds. 7. coil - cooling air duct (Steve and Lori McGee) 8. RE: These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft (Scott Cable) 9. Re: Fun Friday KR static system el cheapo (Scott Cable) 10. Engines (Colin & Bev Rainey) 11. Re: Engines (Scott Cable) 12. Re: Auto engines... ignition (RICHARD G ALPS) 13. Re: Pushtubes (Phil Matheson) 14. Not quite KR (Dene Collett (SA)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:46:58 -0600 From: larry flesner To: KRnet Subject: KR>dodged a bullet(fuel leak) Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20040109134658.007d8580@pop.midwest.net> In-Reply-To: <00f701c3d66d$796753e0$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 1 Thanks to everyone that kept their fingers crossed. I located my wing tank fuel leak without having to cut the wing skins. I opened the 48" rib at the root, the area of the suspected leak, and with help from a friend of mine was able to locate the leak in an area that should be easily fixed. I'll do a full tank fuel test after repair and before taking the wing back to the hangar for installation. I've managed to replace all the intake hoses and gaskets on the 0-200, chage oil and filter, fix my quick drain leak, reroute my fuel line from the gascolator to the carb, put new brass washers on the oil temp sensor to stop an oil drip, performed a fuel flow test with the pressure regulator installed, and several other minor repairs. Ed Sterba says my prop will be shipped no later than Monday so if the tank repair goes o.k. I should be back in the air in a week or so. Yee Haa, let the good times roll !!! Larry Flesner Carterville, Illinois ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:44:37 -0800 From: "Norm Seel" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>capitalization and punctuation -AND spelling Message-ID: <007b01c3d70a$8b01c660$e6c12304@dslverizon.net> References: <01b801c3d666$1ec5e5c0$1202a8c0@basement><000b01c3d69c$f5653a00$e6c12304@dslverizon.net> <004a01c3d6ca$7f0d9400$8d00a8c0@dad> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 2 You are certainly right. I should have had my wife check my spelling. She is better than any Spell Check. I may have other errors. Norm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Janssen" To: "KRnet" Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:06 AM Subject: Re: KR>capitalization and punctuation -AND spelling > Norm, > > I think "coma" should be "comma". :o) Isn't all this fun? :o) > 'Course I > think I AM going into a coma over all this. > > Ed Janssen > mailto:ejanssen@chipsnet.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norm Seel" > To: "KRnet" > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 4:40 AM > Subject: Re: KR>capitalization and punctuation > > > > "day, and got several"- I don't believe there should be a coma after day, > > unless the sentence reads "and I got". It is probably time for me > > to get > > flamed. Norm > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mark Langford" > > To: "KR builders and pilots" > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:07 PM > > Subject: KR>capitalization and punctuation > > > > > > > NetHeads, > > > > > > I made a fairly snide remark about keyboards and periods the other day, > > and > > > got several comments on it. Most thought it was long overdue, and quite > > > appropriate, but one said I'd been way too hard on the guy, that I must > be > > > some kind of frustrated English teacher, and he basically thought > > > I was > > out > > > of line for "flaming" him. > > > > > > I understand that some people just can't spell. Engineers are > > > famous > for > > > that. But I simply can't believe that there are people who can't grasp > > the > > > concept capitalizing the first word of a sentence, and putting a period > at > > > the end of a sentence. If you can read, surely you can manage > > > these two > > > feats. But I'll take his word for it and offer the following > > > advice for > > > those who didn't learn the basics in second grade: > > > > > > Sentences are groups of words that express a concept. The > > > beginning of > > each > > > new sentence has a "capital" letter. That means that you hit the > "shift" > > > key on your keyboard right before and during striking the key that will > be > > > the first word of your sentence, and you'll end up with a large > "capital" > > > letter beginning your sentence. The other thing to grasp is that > > > when > > your > > > concept (sentence) ends, you put a period, or dot (located near > > > the > lower > > > right corner of your keyboard). These two visual queues greatly > > facilitate > > > (help) the reader to understand what it is you're trying to say. > > > > > > However, I suspect that it is not ignorance, but pure laziness and > > > inconsideration that leads to this behavior. The writer is too > > > lazy to > > > bother spending the extra few seconds it takes to capitalize words > > > and > end > > > sentences with periods. He saves a few seconds on the message, > > > and then > > > causes four hundred readers to scratch their heads and read the > paragraph > > > four times to decipher their code. Often, the reader walks away > having > > no > > > idea what the writer was trying to say, or deciding that whatever > > > it > was, > > it > > > was probably senseless anyway. If you add up all the time that > > > was > wasted > > > trying to read these posts, you end up with at least an hour of > > > wasted > KR > > > productivity, all so some inconsiderate dolt could save a few > > > seconds pecking out a message. It all boils down to pure > > > inconsideration, in my > > > humble opinion, and ignoring the other "rules" of this list are > > > right up > > > there with it. > > > > > > Some day I'm going to snap, and start throwing people off the list > > > for refusing to delete the previous five posts to which they are > > > replying. Again, pure inconsideration for the other members of the > > > list. I'm not > > far > > > from giving up here... > > > > > > Mark Langford, Huntsville, AL > > > N56ML "at" hiwaay.net > > > see KR2S project at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:42:48 -0700 (Mountain Standard Time) From: "gleone" To: Subject: KR>Edo-Aire question for the net Message-ID: <3FFF1248.00000F.02680@bce-p949w4at3vz> Content-Type: Text/Plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 3 I just acquired an Edo-Aire 563 (used but supposed to work). The problem= is there is no wiring diagram for installing it. Does anyone have an Edo-Ai= re 563 or other Edo-Aire all in one Nav/Com's I can get a copy of the installation wiring diagram from? I hate to have to go to an A&P to get = it done as they tend to charge an arm and leg. Thanks in advance,=0D =0D Gene Leone=0D Worland, Wyoming =0D =0D =0D =0D "This is a great day for France!" --President Richard Nixon while attendi= ng Charles De Gaulle's funeral. Truer words were never spoken! =0D =20 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:16:38 -0800 From: Greg Martin To: "KR builders and pilots" Subject: Re: KR>for sale Message-ID: <000401c3d6fe$44c256d0$67b7fea9@greg> References: <006601c35a08$ba588ef0$9673ddd8@REDSTOYS> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 4 Red Hang on, as it looks like I'll have the money on Wednesday and I'll FedEx the check to you then. I had to go to a private lender. He's tough to deal with but I think it's done. I'll call you when it makes it. Greg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:41:12 -0600 From: "Mark Jones" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: Re:NOT KR>capitalization and punctuation Message-ID: <004b01c3d70a$10bd6bc0$6401a8c0@wi.rr.com> References: <17e.250a9e19.2d2f9491@aol.com> <005601c3d6b2$d26f2d10$5e0ca58c@tbe.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 5 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Langford" > Sorry I brought it up. My deepest apologies. It won't happen again. Whew.....man am I sorry I responded to the original post. I hope it's all over now. Mark Jones (N886MJ) Wales, WI USA E-mail me at flykr2s@wi.rr.com Visit my KR-2S CorvAIRCRAFT web site at http://mywebpage.netscape.com/n886mj/homepage.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:52:04 EST From: Boeing757mech1@aol.com To: krnet@mylist.net Subject: Re:NOT KR>Medical Blood Pressure Meds. Message-ID: <127.38756d5b.2d3098a4@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 6 To the author; >Just found that my blood pressure medicine may cost me my medical. Change Blood pressure meds! There are lots of meds not that are approved by the FAA. What are you taking? Chris Theroux Gilbert, AZ. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:15:13 -0600 From: "Steve and Lori McGee" To: Subject: KR>coil - cooling air duct Message-ID: <00bf01c3d717$32ce5af0$0202a8c0@lori8v5h2xi9m3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 7 No no .. The electric coil is IN the air duct. Does it get that warm? = Or is this to keep it warm in cold weather? http://home.cfl.rr.com/dapoirier/Corvair/Skycoup05.jpg http://home.cfl.rr.com/dapoirier/Corvair/Skycoup06.jpg Steve McGee Endeavor Wi. USA Building a KR2S widened. lmcgee@maqs.net=20 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:11:29 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Cable To: serge.vidal@ate-international.com, KRnet Subject: RE: KR>These 7 things: Auto vs Aero Engines for Aircraft Message-ID: <20040110021129.78033.qmail@web40807.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <000b01c3d6c5$016b81b0$2c0101c0@ate.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 8 Serge and Colin and KRNetters, I have really resisted hitting the reply button...But I feel now is as good a time as any to reply on this subject. There are profound General Design differences between automobile engines, and aeronautical engines. Which make these engines very application specific. Let's start with basic components: 1.) Crankshaft-(Load Support) The Automobile engine's crankshaft is is designed to turn a flywheel, clutch and input shaft of a transmission(or torque converter). Dynamic Thrust forces are relatively small. More importantly, look how the automotive engine handles or supports these loads. The flywheel (clutch etc.)or torque converter is supported by the crankshaft main thrust bearings and transmission input bearings (front pump bearings for the automatic). This allows the dynamicly loaded power application device to be supported on both ends. In engineering we call this simply supported. The Aero engine's crankshaft is designed to turn a propeller. Dynamic thrust forces are enormous. The aero engine doesn't have the luxury of a transmission bolted to it to support the opposite end of the load. This is why aero engines have very large thrust bearing journals. This allows the dynamicly loaded power application device(propeller) to be supported on only one end. In engineering we call this a cantalever. To illustrate this point, place a board between two saw horses. Place a weight in the middle of the board. That's now a simply supported beam. Now remove one of the saw horses. This is now a cantalevered beam. Keep the board level. See what it takes to keep the ends of the board level? This is how an aero engine handles the load. The closer you get to the load the easier it is to support it. This is the same reason why aero engines have such large thrust bearing surfaces. 2.)Cylinder heads. (Tolerances) Automobile engines combine the combustion chambers into a single unit(s). Aero engines use one cylinder head /combustion chamber per cylinder. Automobile engine production volumes will boggle the mind with the huge amount of volumes each car company produces every year. Aero engines volumes are a tiny fraction of what automotive production volumes are. This isn't the only reason, only part of it. Aero engines operate in a much harsher environment than automobile engines operate in. The aero engines tolerances are much closer than automobile engines in order to get the expected life from the engine. Tighter tolerances drive up cost. The aero engine would not survive in it's harsh environment if automotive production volume tolerances were applied. The Individual Cylinder head allows the aero engines deck height and therefore compression ratio be tightly controlled. Even and smooth power output is the end result. Automobile engines have anything but even and smooth power output because the compression ratio and deck heights cannot be closely controlled, but rather compromised between the best and worst deck heights, at best. Bores are typically within .015 of each other. That's 10 times the tolerance of an aero engines production bore tolerance. Do you know why Chevrolet finally stopped Corvair production? It wasn't because of Nader, it was because the engines were too costly to produce in the needed production volumes. Ignition systems: (failure mode, redundancy & Time). I hear this all the time folks complaining about magnetoes, and how much better electronic ignitions are. reliability etc. etc. Ever have a "Check Engine Light" come on it your car when driving it? There's plenty of cars on the shoulder because the engine just quit. There are no shoulders to pull over on if the electronic module quits on a flight engine. Ask William Wynne, he does not advocate using an electronic ignition on his Corvair Conversion. Typically, when an electronicly controlled automotive engine illuminates, the computer tries to retain the last know set of variables, and goes into what's called the "limp-in" mode. In an aircraft, if that computer ever commanded a limp-in mode, guarrenteed, you are not staying airborne. Failure mode of a Magneto is a gradual performance degridation, which allows the pilot to time to plan where he can make a landing. Time. Aero engines have to completely independant, redundant ignition systems. Mags, wires and Plugs. If you foul or burn a plug because the pilot wasn't paying attention to his workload...You are more than likely to suffer only a small degridation in performance, again allowing: Time An auto engine does not have independant, redundant ignition systems. If you foul a plug, burn a rotor, or chafe through a coil wire, you are in serious trouble, and must take immediate action, because you don't have: Time This is referred to in engineering as single point of failure. There are too many single point of failures in a single electronic ignition system. The same thinking can be applied to electronic fuel injection: Too many single point of failures. Porsche experimented with a certify-able aero engine I believe for Mooney?? It was a behemoth weight-wise. and also a dismal failure. Why? because is had redundant alternators, fuel injectors, ignitions, computers and even a cooling fan... To get around the single point of failure problem. An Aero engine operates in a completely different environment than an auto engine operates in. The differences in design, weight, systems, and even how they are manufactured are profound. Todays auto engines are even more application specific, and are completely designed and optimsed for a specific power-output, price range, fuel economy and class of vehicles, even the kind of terrain they are intended to operate in. Aero Engines are designed for a specific output, aircraft class, and are designed to turn a propeller. Which means they too are designed to operate in a specific kind of "terrain". Because of these profound differences, converting an automobile engine for aircraft use is possible, maybe sometimes economicly feasable. But these significant differences should be addressed, good conversions do, however, a converted automobile engine will never perform as well in an aircraft, as the aero-specific designed engine will. Just as an aero engine doesn't perform as well in a automobile as an automobile engine will. Specicly for Serge: I'M NOT SHOUTING, JUST THAT MY REPLIES TO YOUR MESSAGE WILL BE EASIER TO PICK OUT: --- "Serge F. Vidal" wrote: I fail to understand what exactly is the benefit of an aircraft engine over an automotive conversion. SEE TEXT ABOVE. Certified aircraft engines are overpriced, Fuel -guzzling, noisy, tricky and unreliable beasts. NOISY BECAUSE THEY ARE AIRCOOLED. THE COOLING FINS RADIATE ALOT MORE THAN JUST HEAT, THEY AMPLIFY NOISE ALSO. IF YOU OVERHEAT AN AIRCOOLED ENGINE, REDUCE POWER AND ENRICH THE MIXTURE, THE ENGINE WILL COOL DOWN. IF YOU OVERHEAT A LIQUID COOLED ENGINE, THE RESULT IS COOLANT LOSS. ANOTHER SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE. ALL OF THE LIQUID CONNECTIONS IN A LIQUID COOLED ENGINE ARE POTENTIAL FAILURE POINTS. AERO ENGINES ARE FAR MORE RELIABLE THAN AAUTO CONVERSION, AS FAR AS FUEL GUZZLING, FUEL BURN RATES ARE A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO POWER OUTPUT. They lag 70 years behind automotive technology, and due to the cost of certification that prevents anything better from showing up, these engines will keep > contributing to the high cost of flying. HAVE YOU SEEN THE LYCOMING/HONDA? ELECTRONICLY CONTROLLED DUAL.....MAGNETOS. OVERHEAD VALVES.... CAM IN BLOCK. Any car manufacturer producing engines that heavy on cost, maintenance and fuel, and so unpractical and unreliable, would be out of the engine business pretty soon. SERGE, SEE ABOVE. AUTO ENGINES AND AERO ENGINES OPERATE, AND ARE DESIGNED FOR COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS. AERO ENGINES ARE VERY RELIABLE, FAR MORE RELIABLE THAN A AUTO ENGINE. COMPARE APPLES WITH APPLES. ARE YOU SAYING THAT NEW AERO ENGINES ARE UNRELIABLE, FUEL-GUZZLING AND UNPRACTICAL? OR ARE YOU REFERRING TO OLD USED, TIMED OUT, WORN OUT, PIECED TOGETHER FROM OTHER JUNK ENGINES, AND COMPARING THAT TO A NEW CAR? IF A NEW AERO ENGINE IS AS YOU STATED ABOVE, THEN IT WOULD NEVER BE CERTIFIED FOR USE NOW WOULD IT? ===== Scott Cable KR-2S # 735 Wright City, MO s2cable1@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:32:04 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Cable To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR>Fun Friday KR static system el cheapo Message-ID: <20040110023204.75752.qmail@web40803.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 9 Dana, You are the man. I love this idea. I assume that you really mean Adel rivets? --- Dana Overall wrote: > All you do is drill a 1/8” hole and pop the rivets, > one on each side of the > fuselage. After this, you take a punch and drive > the mandrels out. You now > have a hollow pop rivet with a very long shank. > Slip the 1/8” ID clear > plastic tube over the protruding end and instant > static port. The lines are > joined at one end with a 3/16” plastic Tee fitting > using slip over links > made of ¼” polypropylene tube. Tubing of ¼” is > fitted over the remaining > Tee and routed forward to the instrument panel. ===== Scott Cable KR-2S # 735 Wright City, MO s2cable1@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:40:23 -0500 From: "Colin & Bev Rainey" To: Subject: KR>Engines Message-ID: <009401c3d72b$80430fb0$f2452141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 10 Rather than get mad at the misinformation about engines and technology = concerning them, which by the way Scott has been stated that way since = the 70's and never updated, I will instead issue a friendly challenge. = I will be willing to bet you that I will fly longer between services, = smoother, with less maintenance, and 1/4 of the cost and better = reliability than your certified engine. The famous college that William = Wynne himself attended Embry Riddle is proving the concept of both FADEC = engine control, and LIQUID cooled diesel engines running on Jet A. They = are smoother, more reliable, and eliminate the mixture control = effectively removing the human error in proper leaning/mixture control. = Any engine who poor fix of over heating and detonation is the over = richening of the air fuel mixture to provide additional cooling is to me = poorly designed, and receiving the cheapest fix for the problem. The = cylinders are not built with tight tolerances, but rather have to = provide for massive amounts of expansion due to dramatic changes in = clearances due to swelling caused by heat expansion. Take any late = model engine apart and you will see engine honing marks still in the = cylinder walls showing negligible wear after over 100,000 miles of use. = Most Lycs wont even make it to TBO no matter how they are taken care of. = But even if you are right on ALL counts Scott, and other netters listen = up: if I bought just 1 Lycoming new, I could outfit 10 engines like = Mark's Corvair for the same money, fly each 500 hours and never use all = ten before I passed away, effectively never having a catastrophic = failure. You all decide for yourself. Scott, lets see who comes out on = top, friendly challenge to benefit all and make for an interesting = conversation at the Gathering! You up for it? :o) Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com or crbrn96ta@hotmail.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.htmlFrom LJHusky1@wmconnect.com Fri Jan 09 21:25:36 2004 Received: from imo-m01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.136.4]) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AfBct-000ElT-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 21:25:35 -0800 Received: from LJHusky1@wmconnect.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r4.8.) id g.180.248cdd89 (4446) for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:15:07 -0500 (EST) From: LJHusky1@wmconnect.com Message-ID: <180.248cdd89.2d30e45b@wmconnect.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:15:07 EST Subject: Re: KR>Engines To: krnet@mylist.net MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 6.0 for Windows XP sub 52 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1b3 X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: KRnet List-Id: KRnet List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: Here is an email that I received on another group. Might help you guys in this debate. > > A while back, I posted the result of a cursory look at the accident > > statistics for aircraft powered by auto engine conversions. It *was* an > > awful shallow pass, and at the time I promised to look into the issue > > deeper. > > > > I have since obtained the NTSB accident databases for the years 1998, > 1999, > > and 2000, and am ready to provide more exact figures. > > > > The nice thing about the accident databases is that they usually describe > > the type of engine that powers the aircraft. Unfortunately, the FAA > > registration database is a lot more vague. A lot homebuilts are merely > > described as having experimental engines; a number don't even have an > > entry. So we can't do the classic "x% of auto engined-airplanes have > > accidents every year vs. y% Lycont-powered planes." > > > > Instead, we can take another tack: We can catalog the number of each type > > of engine in accident aircraft, then take a look at how often a loss of > > engine power was a factor in the accident. The figures don't include > cases > > where the cause was traced to carburetor ice or the pilot running out of > > fuel. > > > > Presentation of data: > > > > The "ENGINE" column describes the general category of the engine, one of > > four types: > > > > "Certified" Engines include Continentals, Lycomings, Franklins, Pratt > > and Whitney, Jacobs, Vendeyev, LOM, and Walter. > > > > "Auto" Engines include those identified as Subarus, Suzukis, Fords, > > Volkswagens, Revmaster, Chevrolet, GM, Mazda, Honda, Stratus, or NSI. > > > > "Non-C/4" are four-cylinder, non-certified, non-auto conversion > > engines. They include the Rotax 912 series, the Jabiru, and the Rotorway. > > > > "Two-Stokes" include Rotax 4* and 5* series, Yamahas, KFMs, Hirth, > 2SI, > > and Cuyuna. > > > > The next column is "ACC". This is the number of accidents in the > 1998-2000 > > timeframe that involved each category of engine > > > > "PCT" is the percent of the total accidents where that category of engine > > was installed. > > > > "LOP" are the number of accidents where loss of engine power was involved. > > > > "LOP%" is the percentage of cases where accidents involving aircraft > > mounting that category of engine suffered an engine-related loss of power. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > The Results: > > > > ENGINE ACC PCT LOP LOP% > > ------ --- --- --- ---- > > Certified 332 51% 57 17% > > Auto 95 15% 27 28% > > Non-C/4 70 11% 13 19% > > Two-Strokes 134 21% 46 34% > > > > Of primary interest here, I think is the percentage of accidents where a > > loss of engine power occured...17% for certified-engine-powered planes, > vs. > > 28% for auto-engine conversions. Two-strokes were even higher; almost a > > third of their accidents involved a power failure. > > > > It's interesting to note the non-certified four strokes are doing > > practically as well as the certified engines. The Rotax 912/914 series > > alone does even better... a LOP% value of 13%. > > > > An interesting side note: Lycomings outnumbered Continentals by nearly > > four to one.... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:06:49 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Cable To: KRnet Subject: Re: KR>Engines Message-ID: <20040110060649.71533.qmail@web40811.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <009401c3d72b$80430fb0$f2452141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 11 Colin, You saying that the I gave out misinformation is simply not true. I was speaking in general terms about general aviation. Including, but not limited to the KR or same class of aircraft. For instance, A Kr or similar aircraft that is limited to only light aerobatics, could care less about about out of plane thrust loads imposed by aerobatic manuvers. Show me me one auto-conversion engine that is rated for aerobatics. They don't exist. Not the VW, Corvair, Subaru. Show me at Experimental aircraft, that is rated for Aerobatics, they all use certified aircraft engines. Why is that? Because a automobile conversion crankshaft cannot handle asymetrical dynamic thrust loading from the propeller. The crankshaft would break, and you'd pass up the fan on the way down. Show me one auto conversion that's rated for IFR. Again, there is none. I worked for several years for GM Powertrain. I have first hand knowledge and hands on, real life experience in Automotive engine design. I also have better than 15 years experience in aircraft design, including jet engine design. Would that electronically controlled engine work well in place of a certified aero-engine? Absolutely NOT. The engine program I worked certainly had impressive power, along with light weight. It was equipped with 6 bolt main bearing caps, dual overhead cams operating 4 valves per cylinder, direct fuel injection, and electonically controlled camshaft timing. Sounds like a pretty advanced design doesn't it? Although this 6 cylinder had all of these features, it would never work well in an aircraft. the 6 bolt main bearings support a cast crankshaft, with miniscule low drag bearings. Although the block was cast aluminum, it was water cooled. Would you fly behind an engine like this? It made 320 horsepower out of 3.2 Litres. Engine weight was around 290 lbs. It would never fly because it only is available as an optional power upgrade to the Cadillac CTS, and SAAB 9 Turbo. It would be way too expensive to purchase used, let alone convert for aero use. Would you fly behind a cast crankshaft? Would you rely solely on non-redundant flight essential systems? Why are these designs still being used since the 70's? Because they do their application specific job, simply, reduntantly where needed, and nobody has come up with a cost effective, weight effective flight safety designed alternative. I remember when everyone jumped on the Subaru Bandwagon, only to discover: The engine was heavy, had horrible reliablity, it was finickey, and some of the best minds in aviation couldn't match the reliability of an aero engine, or even get it to run past 200 hours. For my personnal application, I had planned on putting in a turbocharged Corvair for my KR-2S. By the time I bought Nickies, fabricated all of the necesisary exhaust and induction and ignition systems, oiling system and essentially everything under the cowling. I could have bought a brand new aero-engine. Some layperson would have inevitably asked: Why didn't you just buy an aircraft engine? So how many of these FADEC controlled engines are you going to buy Colin? None, because they haven't been certified yet. and you can't buy them yet. Where are you going to buy 10 Corvairs? So how long would you think it would take you to build 10 Corvairs? How many more "parts engines" would you have to buy to complete your 10 flight worthy corvairs? You'd spend the rest of your medical searching, cleaning, and fabricating parts. Inevitably some layperson would ask you: Why didn't you just buy a real airplane engine. Wasn't the Corvair Banned by Ralph Nader? 70's technology in the new Lycoming / Honda? 70's Technology in the New Franklin 220? 70's Technology in the Jabiru? Colin, ther's 70 year old technology and older in every single internal combustion engine ever built... You're making your argument based on the Corvair engine? It never saw production after 1970. Here's a challenge for you Colin: Show us how you're going to create electronic engine controls for your KR or other private general aviation aircraft, that's better than the 70's technology that are in flight rated hardware. I'm positive that would make some interesting conversation at the next gathering also. Colin & Bev Rainey wrote: Rather than get mad at the misinformation about engines and technology concerning them, which by the way Scott has been stated that way since the 70's and never updated, I will instead issue a friendly challenge. I will be willing to bet you that I will fly longer between services, smoother, with less maintenance, and 1/4 of the cost and better reliability than your certified engine. USING AN ENGINE THAT NEVER SAW 1970 FOR PRODUCTION... YOU WON'T DO AEROBATICS AND YOU WON'T DO IFR WITH THAT ENGINE EITHER....... The famous college that William Wynne himself attended Embry Riddle is proving the concept of both FADEC engine control, and LIQUID cooled diesel engines running on Jet A. They are smoother, more reliable, and eliminate the mixture control effectively removing the human error in proper leaning/mixture control. YEP AND THEY HAVE A CERTIFIED ENGINE TO PROVE IT WORKS TOO Any engine who poor fix of over heating and detonation is the over richening of the air fuel mixture to provide additional cooling is to me poorly designed, and receiving the cheapest fix for the problem. SO YOU HAVE A LIGHTER, MORE EFFECTIVE MEANS OF DOING THIS? The cylinders are not built with tight tolerances, but rather have to provide for massive amounts of expansion due to dramatic changes in clearances due to swelling caused by heat expansion. DO I EVEN NEED TO GO THERE, OK... OPEN UP A LYCOMING SPECIFICATION, FOR SHALL WE SAY, A 100 HP ENGINE. COMPARE THE TOLERANCES TO A LIKE POWERED AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE... EVER BEEN ON AN AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE ASSEMBLY LINE TOUR? IF YOU EVER HAVE THEN YOU'LL KNOW WHY THERE ARE SO MANY NEW CARS SITTING ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. Take any late model engine apart and you will see engine honing marks still in the cylinder walls showing negligible wear after over 100,000 miles of use. SHOW ME ONE AUTO-CONVERSION THAT CAN RUN FOR 1650 HOURS 100,000 MILES IS 33 OIL CHANGES. 33 AIRCRAFT OIL CHANGES @ 50 FLIGHT HOURS IS 1650 FLIGHT HOURS. SHOW ME ONE SUBARU THAT WILL GO PAST HALF OF THAT. Most Lycs wont even make it to TBO no matter how they are taken care of. But even if you are right on ALL counts Scott, and other netters listen up: if I bought just 1 Lycoming new, I could outfit 10 engines like Mark's Corvair for the same money, fly each 500 hours and never use all ten before I passed away, effectively never having a catastrophic failure. You all decide for yourself. Scott, lets see who comes out on top, friendly challenge to benefit all and make for an interesting conversation at the Gathering! You up for it? :o) SURE COLIN, NEED I MENTION SEAT BELT ATTACHMENTS? ;O) Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com or crbrn96ta@hotmail.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html_______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html Scott Cable KR-2S # 735 Wright City, MO s2cable1@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" SweepstakesFrom s2cable1@yahoo.com Fri Jan 09 22:21:55 2004 Received: from web40804.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.78.181]) by lizard.esosoft.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AfCVP-000FJy-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:21:55 -0800 Message-ID: <20040110061131.43539.qmail@web40804.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.91.3.103] by web40804.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:11:31 PST Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:11:31 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Cable Subject: Re: KR>Engines To: KRnet In-Reply-To: <180.248cdd89.2d30e45b@wmconnect.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1b3 X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: KRnet List-Id: KRnet List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: Nice Stats... As it's been said before: Numbers don't lie. LJHusky1@wmconnect.com wrote: Here is an email that I received on another group. Might help you guys in this debate. > > A while back, I posted the result of a cursory look at the accident > > statistics for aircraft powered by auto engine conversions. It *was* an > > awful shallow pass, and at the time I promised to look into the issue > > deeper. > > > > I have since obtained the NTSB accident databases for the years 1998, > 1999, > > and 2000, and am ready to provide more exact figures. > > > > The nice thing about the accident databases is that they usually describe > > the type of engine that powers the aircraft. Unfortunately, the FAA > > registration database is a lot more vague. A lot homebuilts are merely > > described as having experimental engines; a number don't even have an > > entry. So we can't do the classic "x% of auto engined-airplanes have > > accidents every year vs. y% Lycont-powered planes." > > > > Instead, we can take another tack: We can catalog the number of each type > > of engine in accident aircraft, then take a look at how often a loss of > > engine power was a factor in the accident. The figures don't include > cases > > where the cause was traced to carburetor ice or the pilot running out of > > fuel. > > > > Presentation of data: > > > > The "ENGINE" column describes the general category of the engine, one of > > four types: > > > > "Certified" Engines include Continentals, Lycomings, Franklins, Pratt > > and Whitney, Jacobs, Vendeyev, LOM, and Walter. > > > > "Auto" Engines include those identified as Subarus, Suzukis, Fords, > > Volkswagens, Revmaster, Chevrolet, GM, Mazda, Honda, Stratus, or NSI. > > > > "Non-C/4" are four-cylinder, non-certified, non-auto conversion > > engines. They include the Rotax 912 series, the Jabiru, and the Rotorway. > > > > "Two-Stokes" include Rotax 4* and 5* series, Yamahas, KFMs, Hirth, > 2SI, > > and Cuyuna. > > > > The next column is "ACC". This is the number of accidents in the > 1998-2000 > > timeframe that involved each category of engine > > > > "PCT" is the percent of the total accidents where that category of engine > > was installed. > > > > "LOP" are the number of accidents where loss of engine power was involved. > > > > "LOP%" is the percentage of cases where accidents involving aircraft > > mounting that category of engine suffered an engine-related loss of power. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > The Results: > > > > ENGINE ACC PCT LOP LOP% > > ------ --- --- --- ---- > > Certified 332 51% 57 17% > > Auto 95 15% 27 28% > > Non-C/4 70 11% 13 19% > > Two-Strokes 134 21% 46 34% > > > > Of primary interest here, I think is the percentage of accidents where a > > loss of engine power occured...17% for certified-engine-powered planes, > vs. > > 28% for auto-engine conversions. Two-strokes were even higher; almost a > > third of their accidents involved a power failure. > > > > It's interesting to note the non-certified four strokes are doing > > practically as well as the certified engines. The Rotax 912/914 series > > alone does even better... a LOP% value of 13%. > > > > An interesting side note: Lycomings outnumbered Continentals by nearly > > four to one.... _______________________________________________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html Scott Cable KR-2S # 735 Wright City, MO s2cable1@yahoo.com --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" SweepstakesFrom larry.capps@comcast.net Fri Jan 09 22:35:00 2004 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by lizard.esosoft.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AfCi4-000FRQ-00 for krnet@mylist.net; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:35:00 -0800 Received: from schpankme (c-67-165-151-111.client.comcast.net[67.165.151.111]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2004011006243601400piecee>; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 06:24:36 +0000 From: "Larry A Capps" To: "'KRnet'" Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:24:58 -0600 Message-ID: <002c01c3d742$7877b3f0$0700a8c0@schpankme> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <180.248cdd89.2d30e45b@wmconnect.com> Importance: Normal Subject: KR>Engines X-BeenThere: krnet@mylist.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: larry.capps@comcast.net, KRnet List-Id: KRnet List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: Please, How on earth can you compare 332-Certified Engines, to a miserly 70-Non-C/4 Engines! Maybe we can have a fair representation of engine specific performance issues, based equal numbers of engines for the group(s), not shown in the Original Message. This smacks of Rotax advertisement. Lets take a look at an equal data pool provided by Certified vs. Non-C/4 engines, shall we. Based on the numbers provided, if one extrapolated to equal quantities of (Cert engs vs Non-C/4 engs) engines: ENGINE ACC PCT LOP LOP% ------------------------------------------------------------------ Certified 332 51% 57 17% Non-C/4 332 52% 62 19% Beam me up, Larry A Capps Naperville, IL "Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains" -----Original Message----- Here is an email that I received on another group. Might help you guys in this debate. The Results: ENGINE ACC PCT LOP LOP% ------ --- --- --- ---- Certified 332 51% 57 17% Auto 95 15% 27 28% Non-C/4 70 11% 13 19% Two-Strokes 134 21% 46 34% Of primary interest here, I think is the percentage of accidents where a loss of engine power occured...17% for certified-engine-powered planes, vs. 28% for auto-engine conversions. It's interesting to note the non-certified four strokes are doing practically as well as the certified engines. The Rotax 912/914 series alone does even better... a LOP% value of 13%. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:10:17 -0700 From: "RICHARD G ALPS" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>Auto engines... ignition Message-ID: References: <004101c3d6a9$2e5008c0$f2452141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: list Message: 12 To Colin & Bev Rainey, Hi guys. I was interested in your letter supporting non-aviation power = plants for Experimental aircraft use. I would like to add one simple = note about the points vs electronic ignition. William Wynne offered a = concept that I think is worth passing along. This concept proves = absolutely nothing, but simply provides the user with additional = information from which to form a decision. William Wynne's concept is = this: While the electronic ignition has many fine features, is = stronger, more reliable, better controlled, etc., it contains one = alarming characteristic. And that is that in opposition to points, = which almost universally die in small increments, the electronic variety = work perfectly right up to the very nano-second when they stop = completely. The old point system will act up and work poorly before = dying altogether, thusly allowing the pilot to continue the flight to a = safe haven where repairs can be performed. I am fond of that safety = feature. Thanks for allowing me to offer this little tidbit. Richard G. Alps (Hoping to begin building soon) ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Colin & Bev Rainey=20 To: krnet@mylist.net=20 Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 5:07 AM Subject: KR>Auto engines Scott & netters, I respect Scott's opinion and education/training about the aviation = industry and all his feelings related to the use of aviation related = only parts. IN some applications I agree totally. However, where it = comes to engines I have to respectfully disagree and state a supporting = view to all those using and planning to use auto conversion engines. = Great strides in dependability and safety have been achieved by the auto = manufacturers in their engines in the last years. The success of the = little VW stretches back almost as far if not farther than the Lycoming, = & Continental stable. Initially all engines were water cooled variety, = and some of the most successful breeds of planes did not have air-cooled = powerplants, but rather water cooled ( discounting jet powered ). The = Corvair is another example of a relatively simple conversion that allows = both budget power, and reliable easily attained parts for upkeep. It = also allows the builder to become acquainted with his engine to better = be able to care for it, which in my 15 some odd years of running an = automotive repair shop was the single most important fact that separated = the casual driver who just put gas in it, from the owner who truly cared = for his vehicle. The more you know about the way it works and why, the = better you will care for it. There is much more than just changing the = oil every 50 hours. I totally support and encourage the use of the VW, = Corvair, Subaru, and I personally will in the future be using either a = Honda or GM powerplant in our KR, liquid cooled, and smooth running, = with electronic fuel injection, and PSRU. I hope for all builders = success, but do not feel that everything must be of the aviation variety = to be safe, just good quality and well researched, and tested. I myself = still shudder at the thoughts of people using points ignition systems = when there are so many electronic ones out there that are so much more = reliable and make the engine run so much better. How do you think all = of you are walking out this morning, getting in cold and starting that = engine in your car with not so much as a second thought, one of a = thousand times. Think of how many hours you drive your car trouble = free, and when maintained how it keeps just coming back for more. I can = promise you that there are pilots this morning that will flood their = engines out, run the batteries down, and foul out their plugs this = morning at the airport near here. It has happened to me every winter = from "old reliable Lyc". Opinions....... Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crainey1@cfl.rr.com or crbrn96ta@hotmail.com = http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html___________________________________= ____________ see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:00:34 +1100 From: "Phil Matheson" To: "KRnet" Subject: Re: KR>Pushtubes Message-ID: <013901c3d758$47d633a0$7297dccb@Office> References: <003801c3d6a6$9e6dd860$f2452141@RaineyDay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 13 My elevator is 1 1/8 " 4130 .035 push rod. As per my plans Phil Matheson matheson@dodo.com.au VH-PKR ( reserved) 61 3 58833588 See our VW Engines and Home built web page at http://www.vw-engines.com/ www.homebuilt-aviation.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:20:09 +0200 From: "Dene Collett \(SA\)" To: "krnet" Subject: KR>Not quite KR Message-ID: <000701c3d75b$1d34c820$37e5fea9@telkomsa127179> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 14 Guys,I know it isn't friday but I just have to tell someone this.I just got the good news that late yesterday afternoon my ftriend made the maiden flight in his "Whisper" motor glider that he has been building for the past two years and designing for many more before that!Aparently it flies just like the dream it was meant to be.The link to his sight is below. He will probably be updating it shortly, possibly with some video footage. I believe there has been such interest in the kit that he is offering that some folks have driven 1000KM just to see it in the flesh and to place their orders! Just to make this message KR related, I had the inspector check out my rear centre spar last night--OK to close. One step closer! At least I have spread the good news somewhere, I feel much better now. Dene Collett South Africa mailto: dene.collett@telkomsa.net P.S. Checkout www.whisperaircraft.com ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ See KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html End of KRnet Digest, Vol 276, Issue 1 *************************************