PDA

View Full Version : alternative engine



pistoncan
08-07-2008, 08:52 PM
I don' t know if anyone would be interested but here are some pictures of my engine as of today. I worked on my motor mount jig today and got the motor mount tack welded together. I decided to set it at 2 degrees down. because its a tray mount I can shim the motor mounts 2degrees up or down to make it 4 degrees down or zero thrust line.
Its a 67 corvair with a new (reground) 3,000 RPM delta cam.
Magnafluxed, nitrated and safetyshaft installed crank, turned .010 and polished. New rod and main bearings. new lifters, new ..030 oversize jugs with forged .030 pistons (167 cu in) and new grant chrome rings.
Dual point distributor, dual switchable dual coils and 8mm silicone wires.
Carb is a bendix/Zenith sidedraft, rebuilt-from a harley sportster.
lightweight 20 amp alternator (1 wire) and nissan starter. (carb, alt, and starter are not mounted yet)
Deep cast aluminum pan with extended oil pickup.
Maybe I will be able to get it running before snow flies.

Wheelie Wayne
08-07-2008, 09:46 PM
I hope it works out good for you. I got cold feet on my auto engine conversion. I am building a V6 STOL and even had the V6 that had been converted and flown for over 100 hours. I sold it a few years ago because I heard too often "if you like to fly, use an aircraft engine....if you like to tinker, use an automotive engine". I was able to make a few bucks on the engine when I sold it and plan to use in 0-360 or IO-360 on my modified Pacer now. The auto engine was intriguing but I guess I weenied out. Good luck on yours.

andya
10-21-2008, 09:06 AM
I'm just not familiar with engines in experimental aircraft and FAA AD notes, but I' sure this automotive option solves my dilema. A friend of mine has an RV with a Lyc and ECI cylinders. Two of the Cylinders are in the category per AD 2008-19-05 regards only may be used until 350 hours TT and then scrap. He has been told by other experimental drivers that the AD note does not apply to him because his engine is in an experimental aircraft. The engine has a Lyc data plate attached and was overhauled some 100 hours ago by a repair station (which probably makes no diff).

I thought I had heard that if the engine had no data plate to tell what it was model wise,then you were out of the woods regards AD compliance (not necessarily smart, but). If the engine had a data plate then you were FAA obligated to comply with AD notes even though the engine was in an "experimental cert'd aircraft".

Opinions are fine but referenced backup to this question would be greatly appreciated.

JohnW
10-21-2008, 10:05 AM
He has been told by other experimental drivers that the AD note does not apply to him because his engine is in an experimental aircraft.

Andy, This information -although common- is incorrect. First off, why wouldn't someone WANT TO comply with an Airworthiness Directive that was issued at great expense issued to correct an issue that is considered safety of flight? That makes no sense whatsoever, and indicates a certain kind of "mindset" that was never intended to be supported, much less inferred. If there is an Airworthiness Directive on a piece/part or assembly that is installed on an aircraft. it is "applicable" whether it is being operated under the auspices of an Experimental Category Airworthiness Certificate, or not. Have whomever believes that "their interpretation" of what their Airworthiness Certificate states is "correct", when it speaks in so many words, as to how they maintain the airworthiness of their aircraft. Make them show YOU why "A.D.s do not apply to Experimentals", because even EAA says "They do". This is in fact an "opinion issue"... but if you want "verification" that A.D.s DO apply...Call FSDO and ask them for "guidance" in the matter. They are the Experts. Be prepared to answer the question "Who DOESN'T seem to think that an A.D. on a Lycoming engine used on an Experimental does NOT apply?", because they WILL be asking it. They will want to ensure that whomever is responsible for the Condition Inspections that are required is doing the right thing and understands "why" and they would ABSOLUTELY welcome such a question from anyone that would call them and ask it. That would INCLUDE whoever does the COndition Inspection of the Experimental in question (MORESO if that is "you" using your A&P)! There will be NO "certificate actions", unless someone wants to stand toe-to-toe with them and tell the FAA that THEY are "wrong", and then refuses to comply once shown to be misinformed! Now, whether the "Experimenter" wants to apply for an AMOC for a "solution" to the A.D. is a whole 'nother matter. But 14CFR of the U.S. Code says that the FAA has the authority to ISSUE such Directives, and there is NO authorization for exemption for Experimental Aircraft. In other words, proving you HAVE to comply is not the issue! Authority for "NOT COMPLYING" is the issue, and there IS "no reference" that can be quoted for that! They DO apply.

pistoncan
10-21-2008, 10:58 AM
I'm just not familiar with engines in experimental aircraft and FAA AD notes, but I' sure this automotive option solves my dilema. A friend of mine has an RV with a Lyc and ECI cylinders. Two of the Cylinders are in the category per AD 2008-19-05 regards only may be used until 350 hours TT and then scrap. He has been told by other experimental drivers that the AD note does not apply to him because his engine is in an experimental aircraft. The engine has a Lyc data plate attached and was overhauled some 100 hours ago by a repair station (which probably makes no diff).

I thought I had heard that if the engine had no data plate to tell what it was model wise,then you were out of the woods regards AD compliance (not necessarily smart, but). If the engine had a data plate then you were FAA obligated to comply with AD notes even though the engine was in an "experimental cert'd aircraft".

Opinions are fine but referenced backup to this question would be greatly appreciated.
Andy, I think this is what you are looking for
http://www.provide.net/~pratt1/ambuilt/ad.htm

JohnW
10-21-2008, 12:40 PM
Okay...before someone has the opportunity to do so [darn, Gary...ya snuck in there!), I am going to respond to my own Post...I left after Posting to do some "more defintive research" to "support my position". In doing so, I see that a "position" formerly taken by EAA has been somewhat "modifed". This "new Official position" in fact modifies my stance somewhat, as well, from what I wrote in the last Post. (I'm not above that...). For those of "us" here that have access (I believe the following link requires a sign-in to read, but here goes anyway...) I offer "this":

http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp

Fpr those that "cannot" sign in (no EAA Membership, IF that is in fact required) it basically says that EAA's position on this matter (specifically, a "certified engine installed on an Experimental" and whether it is "required to comply" with an A.D. issued against it) is NOT "required" to comply, because (doublespeak) the aircraft that it is installed on is NOT a Type Certificated product, so a Type Certificated ON a non-TC's product is not a certificated TC'd product being operated (okay, my head hurts, too). So it is not actually "applicable" to a TC'd engine on a non-TC'd "airplane". While I find this a wee little bit "technical" in that an airplane is an airplane, and "safety of flight" SHOULD apply the same, I guess it doesn't. However, I read quite clearly "between the lines" that EAA thinks SOMETHING that is the responsibility of the Experimenter is required that "addresses" an unsafe issue". That I DO agree with. One of EAA's examples is "replacing a mag [for example] that has an A.D. on it with an "experimental ignition system" in lieu of a mag with a known deficientcy, and that doing so "addresses" the issue satisfactorily. THAT, I agree with. EAA seems to indicate that it considers "being bullish that the A.D. "doesn't have the authority to require attention" does NOT address a known deficientcy, and the DARN NEAR say thet feel that is "irresponsible". THAT I would agree with. "Totally ignoring an unsafe condition" is not within the spirit or intent of building your own airplane, and is the root cause for my "passion" about [for example] thinking that you NEVER have to inspect your Homebuilt because it doen't require an Annual Inspection. The whole reason for an "Annual Inspection" is primarily to ensure that the condition of the aircraft is "safe" (which right or wrong, the FAA feels means that if it conforms to it's TC or legally altered condition, it IS safe. I subscribe to that philosophy). But I regularly see Homebuilts that are ten or more years old that have NEVER had inspection rings cut out. HOW was the internal condition of the wings determined? They didn't "fall off"? That is a SAD response. I have gotten access to Experimental logs for airplanes that had NOT ONE single Condition Inspection logged in TWENTY years, but the Owner "swears he does it". Who is fooling who?

I guess I stand "corrected". But I will remain adamant that any Experimental Category aircraft on which I might be asked to "do a Condition Inspection on" (and there ARE a few) at least "addresses" Airworthiness Directives in SOME MANNER that is consistant with "being an Experimenter", unless the Owner wishes to comply. Oddly, I have never received an argument for inspecting the impulse coupling on a Bendix mag when an A.D. required it, just because the A/W Cert was pink. Maybe I just know "dedicated, SAFE Experimental Owners(?).

d.grimm
10-21-2008, 05:48 PM
A friend was having his initial inspection on his homebuilt Celebrity with a A-75 Continental (no dataplate) and the inspector
noticed the Brackett air filter and wanted to make sure it was a Revision D and that it did comply with the AD. In no uncertain terms he told us they are applicable to experimentals.
Dave

Steve Pierce
10-21-2008, 08:45 PM
Very good article on this subject on the members section of the EAA website. http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp? As far as the ECI cylinders I would dam sure comply with that. My discussions with ECI about these cylinders were advantageous to the consumer.

andya
10-21-2008, 10:14 PM
thanks John and others for your guidance and information. A mentor from way back that helped me get my experience and training inorder to apply and pass all necessary to get my A&P and eventually an IA warned strongly not to get involved with experimental aircraft condition inspections. I would feel a little uncomfortable doing such as I am used to working with all the data I have on a given certified airplane. The individual that made the statement on the AD as it does or does not apply to his bird, has been told by me and another that to not do something about those cylinders would not be smart. He has to make up his own mind. I have given him some help and guidance but resist any official signature of mine in the logs. I guess if I had an experimental that I built, to that extent, at least I would know how it went together and what to look for, other than that case, I stay away from anything more serious than assisting with engine timing, fuel system adjustments and other simple items.


thanks to all

andy